What Happened? A Class Analysis of the NZ Election, Part 1 of 4
- By : Elliot
- Category : Election 2017, Green Party, Labour Party, National Party, New Zealand politics
- Tags: 2017, Bill English, Budget Responsibility Rules, child poverty, election, Green Party, homelessness, inequality, Jacinda Ardern, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party, Metiria Turei, National Party, neoliberalism, New Zealand, Politics, poverty, Rogernomics, Third Way
By Elliot Crossan
Once again, and for the fourth time in nine years, in the wake of New Zealand’s general election, the aftermath for the left is despondency and despair. The National Party has again won a percentage of party votes that should be impossible under MMP; a racist and slightly mad populist holds the balance of power despite only receiving 7.5% of the vote; and the Green Party has lost half its MPs. While it is understandable, much of the reaction thus far involves negativity towards voters and non-voters alike—largely consisting of accusations that the electorate are inherently either selfish or apathetic. This analysis does not feel right to me at all.
We are allowed to weep, and we are allowed to lash out. To be emotional in this time is inevitable. My instinctive response is to try to avoid my emotions and rationalise everything, hence this essay! But it is counterproductive and, in my view, quite unfair to attack the voters. We need to analyse why people voted the way they did, what went so badly wrong that National could all but win a fourth term, and what needs to happen in 2020. Don’t mourn, organise!
Politics primarily comes down to two things: the material conditions of the voters, and which political force is articulating the most coherent and convincing story about why the status quo is the way it is and what to do to change the to improve conditions for people in a just way. In this essay I will try to analyse why the status quo continues to prevail despite an economic system that is granting benefits of growth to the already wealthy instead of to the majority of people.
National’s Support Holds Strong
The main reason the left feels so disorientated by this result is that National’s large, solid support base has once again not budged. In moments of anguish, we see this fact as proof that a majority of New Zealanders are selfish and do not care about poverty, inequality, and climate change, as these issues do not affect them. I believe this attitude is defeatist, simplistic and wrong.
Why has National received 45-47% of the vote in every election since 2008? To understand we first must adjust that for turnout. National has in fact received 35-36% in the last four elections, with turnout fairly steady at between 74% and 79%. In short, the 35-36% of New Zealanders who vote National largely benefit from economic growth driven by rising house prices and low wages, and from the income tax cuts granted by a National government in surplus. It can be argued that these people—the older, conservative, comfortable middle-and-upper classes—are morally condemnable for not caring about poverty, inequality and climate change. To argue thus does not help us in any way, even if it is true. People vote for their living standards and are mostly unaware of what is going on outside of their own personal bubbles. This applies to the left as well as the right. This is not going to change. The problem is that, while 35% of people vote for National, we are not able to either articulate a more coherent narrative about society than the right’s vision of neoliberal individualism and therefore win over some of their voters, or muster at least 40% of potential voters to outvote and defeat the comfortable middle classes.
The only way National will lose their support base and cease to continuously win elections under the current political climate would be a severe recession caused by the global economy tanking and/or the collapse of the housing market. This would be a catastrophe for all of us, hitting the poorest the hardest, as it would result in mass unemployment, massive cuts in government spending from whichever neoliberal government was in power, and in a ‘lost generation.’ This is precisely what happened in Ireland, Greece and Spain, and to a lesser extent in many other European countries. We simply cannot let it happen here. We need to defeat National, diffuse the housing market bomb, make our economy more resilient to international conditions, and rebuild the welfare state—before it is too late.
‘Jacindamania’ Falls Flat
But Jacinda Ardern increased the Labour vote by 10.7%? Once again, it is not as simple as that. In 2014, Labour and the Greens fell to a nadir, with a combined total of 35.8% of the vote, while National received 47%, an unprecedented result for any party in an MMP system, and especially a scandal-ridden government going into its third term. This result looks even better when you realise that Colin Craig’s Conservative Party all but stole 4% from National—if it had not been for the Conservatives, Key would likely have scored an outright majority, utterly unheard of under MMP.
The collapse of Craig’s party thereafter masked the polling trends over the next three years. National suffered a small amount of third term attrition, but that drop in the polls was stymied by pretty much all of the former Conservative voters returning to the Nats or New Zealand First. The polls did not change much when John Key resigned and National transitioned with once again remarkable skill to Bill English. Between the resignations of John Key and Andrew Little, the Labour-Green bloc polled consistently within a range of 37.1% and 44%, while National’s range was 43%-49%. With the election result of Labour-Green 41.6%, National 46%, these poll results were strikingly similar to what happened.
What, then, was ‘Jacindamania’ all about? Firstly, she realigned the existing centre-left. The Greens were polling between 9% and 14.5% before hitting an all-time high in Colmar Brunton polling of 15% after Metiria Turei’s admission of benefit fraud and attempt to start a conversation about poverty. In the chaos that followed, with Kennedy Graham and David Clendon sabotaging the Greens, Ardern becoming Labour leader, and Metiria herself resigning, the Greens collapsed from 9-15% down to their worst election result since 2005, 5.9%. Labour, meanwhile, increased their vote by 10.7%. This is roughly equivalent to the 4.8% of voters Labour took from the Greens, plus the 4% they had already taken from National while Little was still leader, plus a couple more percentage points from Winston Peters. NZ First polled between 7.5% and 13% while Little was leader, and ended up on 7.5%, at the bottom of that range. It is likely Ardern took 2-3% from NZF, but no more. All ‘Jacindamania’ resulted in was Green voters jumping from their burning ship to Labour, plus a small number of NZF voters also returning to Labour. Ardern is acting like this was some kind of triumph, and from her narrow, tribally Labour perspective, 13 new MPs is a victory. To not manage to overturn a three term government, despite the massive media hype she generated, is a cataclysmic defeat.
Secondly, during her seven-week campaign, Ardern did, for a time, start to win over National voters. The combined Labour-Green polling under her leadership ranged from 41.3% to 51%. The National vote ranged from 39% to 47.3%. Why, then, did the election result end up at the very lowest estimate for the centre-left, and the very highest estimate for the right?
There are two most likely reasons for this. The first is that people did not turn out for Labour and the Greens. The second is that ‘Jacindamania’ ground to a halt because of Labour’s utter weakness on tax. This second explanation requires some historical context.
The Third Way
Since the 1990s, social democratic parties across the developed world, such as Labour, have been predominantly run by ‘centrist’ leaders who are not prepared to challenge the neoliberal status quo of small government and low taxes on the rich. This movement in social democracy, named the Third Way, was spearheaded by Bill Clinton in the US and Tony Blair in the UK, who, after the right-wing revolutions of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, argued that voters were fundamentally happy with this new norm of stratified, unequal societies, and that the centre-left should not alter neoliberalism once in power. The success of Third Way politics in hijacking social democratic parties across the western world has meant that elections since the 80s and 90s have been fought on this premise: under conditions of economic growth, the right, if they win, will deliver tax cuts, and if the centre-left win, they will deliver a small increase in public spending. However, the centre-left will not raise taxes much if at all, and will not counter any of the systemic changes made in the 80s that saw dramatic rises in inequality across the world. If there is a recession, both parties will cut government spending, increasing inequality even more. The neoliberal project could not have been successful without the victory of Third Way politics within formerly left-wing parties, parties which would traditionally have opposed and implemented policies to counter these shocking levels of inequality.
Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and the world’s most iconic political champion of free market, union busting neoliberal economics, was once asked what her greatest achievement was, and her answer was New Labour. New Labour was the rebranded UK Labour Party after the election of Tony Blair as leader in 1994. This was either high praise or a damning indictment of Blair’s legacy, depending on what side of the political spectrum you fall on—for whether or not you agree with free market economics, what is clear is that the founder of neoliberalism in the UK saw the final victory of her political and economic project as the coming to power of a Labour leader, and from 1997 to 2007 a Labour Prime Minister, who believed that Thatcherism as an ideology and a set of policies was both necessary and justified. An example of New Labour cementing neoliberalism into place in Britain was the Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK equivalent of the Finance Minister), in Blair’s government, Gordon Brown’s approach to the size of government. After 18 years of a hard right Conservative government aggressively shrinking the size of the welfare state, with fire sale privatisations, major cuts to public services, and huge tax cuts for the rich, Brown came into office as Chancellor promising to commit for the first two years of the New Labour administration to the same austerity spending plans as the outgoing Conservatives. He also pledged Labour to a Fiscal Golden Rule of only ever borrowing money for investment purposes. As a package these fiscal policies meant keeping the size of the state low, to Thatcher’s delight. Left-wing critics, such as socialist Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, called for an increase in social spending and in taxes for the rich to close the inequality gap Thatcher had created, and were ignored. Brown was later to be Prime Minister from 2007-2010, and implemented cuts to government spending in response to the Global Financial Crisis before being voted out at the 2010 election, only for the Conservatives to increase the harshness of the cuts. New Labour represented, as was always the intention of the neoliberals in the UK, the full adoption of free market economics by the major social democratic party alongside the major right-wing party which introduced the ideology in the first place.
Left-wing critics of Third Way politics opposed Blairism, but were even more hostile to 1993-2001 US President Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party. President Clinton not only cemented neoliberalism as New Labour did, but aggressively expanded it. He was responsible for, among other policies: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which locked in low wages, labour and environmental standards across the continent; the repeal of the Wall Street regulation Glass Steagal which separated investment banking from commercial banking, contributing directly to the Financial Crisis; and savage cuts to welfare in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In the State of the Union address in which he announced these welfare cuts, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” This aptly summarises the Third Way approach to the economy: the free market is here to stay.
Third Way Politics In New Zealand
In New Zealand, Helen Clark’s Fifth Labour Government conformed directly to this formula of Third Way politics. Under Clark’s watch, inequality continued to rise, until the implementation of Working For Families, when it fell back to roughly the same level it had been before Labour came into power, under the market fundamentalist Fourth National Government. Labour raised the top rate of income tax from 33% to 39%, which was significantly lower than the 66% top rate under National Prime Minister Robert Muldoon (1975-1984). But the bottom 10% of New Zealanders got poorer under the Clark government, because Labour refused to extend Working For Families to beneficiaries. This is consistent with Third Way ideology, which allows for a very moderate redistribution of wealth to working families in times of economic growth, but only conditionally. If the economy stops growing, advocates of Third Way politics believe that such redistribution cannot be afforded. Meanwhile, this redistribution is not granted at all to those who are not in work, whom Third Way politicians condemn to poverty, starvation, poor health, and decreased life expectancy. This is the result of refusing to break with the fundamental structures of neoliberal economics. Meanwhile, under Clark, our fresh water quality was degraded, net carbon emissions rose, and house prices doubled.
Jacinda Ardern is a Third Way politician, as are most Labour MPs, and some in the Greens (disgraced former Green MPs Kennedy Graham and David Clendon would probably fit this description, but not social justice activists such as Metiria Turei). In March this year, Labour and the Greens, who had agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding in mid-2016 stating that they would work together to change the government in the 2017 election campaign, signed up to Budget Responsibility Rules (BRR) which committed the parties, in a future coalition government, to tight fiscal parameters. These parameters were directly modelled on New Labour’s fiscal Golden Rule policy and its commitment to austerity-era spending plans. Labour leader at the time, Andrew Little, echoed the words of Bill Clinton at the launch of BRR; “We’ll be a smart government, not necessarily a big government,” he declared. The key aims of the BRR were to keep core crown spending to an average of 30% of GDP over a three year cycle, or roughly 1% of GDP higher than National intended to spend, while running surpluses and reducing debt to 20% of GDP. This is while international interest rates are the lowest they have been in decades and while New Zealand has a debt level so low that it is the envy of the world. This initiative came, not from the blatantly Third Way and ‘centrist’ Labour Party, but from Greens Finance spokesperson and current sole co-leader James Shaw, arguably a Third Way politician himself—certainly on the right of his party. The BRR was a direct signal to the media and business establishment that a Labour-Green government would not deliver any structural changes to New Zealand’s economy—changes which would challenge the status quo of low public spending, low taxes on the rich, high inequality, high poverty, ridiculous house prices, toxic rivers, and rising emissions.
Little’s resignation and Ardern’s dramatic rise to the Labour leadership saw her double down on this Third Way political positioning. Soon after coming into office in 2008, the Key government cut the top tax rate from 39% back down to 33%. While Clark had been weak by historical standards for only raising the top tax rate to 39% when it had once been 66% and higher, and while David Cunliffe, Labour leader during the disastrous 2014 election, was even weaker for only promising a 36% top tax rate, Ardern ruled out any increase in the top tax rate at all—she could not even propose raising taxes on the highest income earners by 1%! In an interview with Guyon Espiner, in which Ardern controversially stated that neoliberalism had failed, she also ruled out any changes to the structures created by the 1984-1993 New Right governments which originally embedded small government and free market economics in New Zealand: altering the Reserve Bank Act, reversing asset sales, and bringing back inheritance tax were all off the table. She may not publicly identify as a neoliberal, yet her policies dispute her claims: she re-committed to the Budget Responsibility Rules which had been signed when she was deputy Labour leader, and said she was open to a renegotiation of the TPPA. Meanwhile, what didn’t she refuse to rule out? New mining, fracking, or deep sea oil and gas drilling projects. Ardern was a staffer to Tony Blair in 2006 and is committed to Third Way neoliberal politics, just as he was.
Labour’s Tax Bombshell
In the 1992 UK general election, Labour leader Neil Kinnock’s hopes of defeating a three-term right-wing government were shattered. The indirect predecessor to Tony Blair had spent nine years moving his party to the right, ditching any hint of policies that would offer radical change, such as taxing the rich. Alongside that, Kinnock had ditched any hint of class analysis from the rhetoric of the Labour Party. Everybody thought Kinnock would lead Labour to its first victory since 1974, but instead they were given another five years in opposition, to only win government in 1997 after the complete implosion of the Conservative government—which oversaw economic catastrophe, was soaked in endless scandal, and succumbed to internal civil war. Why did Kinnock lose? Because he tried to dodge the issue of how he was going to pay for the moderate increases in public spending he was promising. The Conservatives ran now famous posters entitled “Labour’s tax bombshell,” which implied that every Briton would have higher taxes under Labour due to a weak economy and a larger government. These posters had a devastating effect and destroyed Kinnock’s campaign.
One of the main reasons why Ardern’s flame faltered and failed was National’s very effective campaign against New Zealand Labour’s ‘tax bombshell.’ Ardern made a vague promise of a tax working group if she was elected to “assess how to make the tax system more progressive” after the election. This was a hubristic move and cost her campaign dearly. Voters whose living standards are already eroding do not want vague statements regarding who is going to be taxed and how much they are going to be taxed, they want clarity—and the National campaign knew this. National went after the tax working group proposal hard—and it hurt Labour enough that Ardern had to perform a humiliating u-turn and announce that the results of the tax working group would not be implemented until 2021, after the next election. This tax screw-up followed by the u-turn saw Labour drop from 44% to 37% in Colmar Brunton polling in the final week of the campaign.
‘Jacindamania’ had been taking votes from National, and then fell flat. But was there an alternative? Undoubtedly.
Ye Are Many—They Are Few!
Jeremy Corbyn was the first major British politician in 32 years to break with neoliberal politics. He came from the diminished but determined socialist tradition in the UK Labour Party associated with opposition to capitalism, war, nuclear weapons, and the European Union. Corbyn was given 200-1 odds of becoming Labour leader when he declared his candidacy, barely received enough nominations to get on the ballot, and then a couple of months later won the leadership with the biggest mandate of any leader in history, 59.5%. From day one, the establishment was against him—74% of media coverage of Corbyn was negative, 80% of the (predominantly Third Way, Blairite) MPs in his own party filed a no-confidence motion against him not even a year into his leadership, and he generally struggled to gain any traction for his political project. He was 20% behind in the polls in April this year when Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May called a surprise general election. She set a campaign period of just seven weeks and refused to take part in any televised debates with other party leaders. Everybody was predicting a landslide victory for the Conservatives and that Corbyn would have to resign, defeated, a symbol of the electoral oblivion inevitably inflicted upon those who try and contest elections from the left.
Corbyn ran his supposedly doomed campaign on the slogan “For the Many, Not the Few.” His manifesto promised £48bn of new government spending in order to drastically reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and restore a measure of equality to Britain. He promised to raise taxes by an astonishing £52bn to pay for this. By all conventional political wisdom, this was suicide. Imagine the campaign the Conservatives could run against a Labour Party promising to raise taxes by many times what Kinnock had proposed in 1992—it would be Labour’s tax bombshell, multiplied.
Except for one absolutely crucial detail. Corbyn promised to only raise this £52bn of taxes on the top 5% of Britons. He was running a radical campaign based on the accurate premise that the rich have hoarded all the wealth in society, and that by dramatically raising their taxes and then spending that money in the interests of everybody, the gap between the rich and the poor could close. It worked. This is because it was an injection of radical, class-based politics into a previously neoliberal political atmosphere—Corbyn’s campaign provided the electorate with a sense of powerful perspective which resonated strongly with millions of people.
Corbyn went from 25% in the polls seven weeks out from the election to 30%, 35%, and finally won 40% on voting day—the highest percentage UK Labour had received since Tony Blair’s 2001 election victory; when adjusted for turnout, Corbyn’s result was higher than 2001. It was in fact Labour’s second biggest share of the vote since 1979, second only to Blair’s 1997 landslide. The Labour vote went up by 9.6%, their biggest increase in votes between elections since 1945. While Labour did not win, Corbyn’s electrifying campaign did stop the Conservatives from securing a majority in parliament, when everybody from the media to the Conservatives to the Third Way majority within the Labour Party had been convinced that the Conservatives were on course for an historic landslide. Corbyn did not win these votes from other left-wing parties, as Jacinda Ardern did. The surge in support for UK Labour and Corbyn’s political project came from gaining older, conservative voters from the collapsing far-right United Kingdom Independence Party, voters commentators were sure would go to the Conservative Party; it came from taking votes directly from the Conservatives; and, most importantly, it came from an absolutely remarkable surge in turnout from young, working class, and black and minority ethnic voters, with turnout among 18-24 year olds increasing by a staggering 16%.
Corbyn proved that to succeed, a left-wing party in the age of populism needs to run on a platform to clearly position itself as a party for the working class and against the wealthy elite; For the Many, Not the Few. Young people are sick and tired of establishment politics and establishment economics; we yearn for something which actually resonates with our lives, which involve high house prices, ridiculous rental costs, low wages, debt, and a general feeling that our future living standards will not be as good as the living standards our parents have enjoyed. We yearn for a movement in politics to challenge the status quo, and to state the obvious: the wealthy and the powerful around the world have rigged the economy in their favour, and it is hurting ordinary people like us. Corbyn also proved that young, working class and ethnically diverse people will turn out to vote for social democratic parties, but only when they believe that genuine change is possible.
At Glastonbury after the election, Corbyn once again did something which defied conventional wisdom. Amidst the roaring of the crowd gathered to listen to him speak, he read 19th Century poetry to young people primarily there to attend a music festival! The words he read out demonstrate perfectly the approach the left in Aotearoa desperately needs to use to counter right-wing political narratives, and to change the world.
Rise, like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you:
Ye are many—they are few!
The Few Outvote the Many
There were two main reasons why ‘Jacindamania’ did not materialise. One was the weakness at the core of her Third Way politics; she refused to campaign on a platform of raising taxes on the rich, and was decimated on that crucial issue as a result. The other reason was that young people; the working class; Māori, Pasifika, and other ethnic minorities; the disenfranchised; the people who are actually affected by neoliberal policies, did not turn out to vote for her. This was despite the advantage she had that Corbyn did not have, of both the establishment media and the Third Way forces within her own party being exceedingly sympathetic to her political project. Where Corbyn’s dramatic surge came from young former non-voters, UKIP voters, and Conservative converts, all Ardern was able to manage was to convert Green votes, while the overall centre-left didn’t progress at all.
The narrative that those who do not vote do not care needs to be smashed—it is patronising and ignorant. The reason why low voter turnout is concentrated among the disenfranchised is that these people are disenfranchised and know from experience that establishment politics have not helped them in their lives. Non-voters know that whether the government is centre-left or centre-right, red or blue, and whatever the minor parties in the governing coalition are, the election result will not significantly improve their living standards. They have been betrayed again and again by political leaders and their cynicism is both understandable and justified.
Turnout of eligible voters in the last four elections has been: 79.5%; 74.2%; 77.9%; 78.8%; factoring in non-eligible voters, it was lower than those figures. Jacinda Ardern utterly failed to expand the electorate. That is why the 35% of New Zealanders who benefit from the gains of economic growth going to the asset-rich can continue voting in National governments to protect their wealth and essentially give themselves tax cuts. It is because the disenfranchised will not turn out for bland, boring, ‘centrist’ Third Way politics. Non-voters knew that Ardern was not delivering a break from these politics, the politics that have kept them and their whānau in poverty. They do not vote because nobody represents them. In order to win, the left desperately needs those non-voters.
What Happened To the Greens?
I would argue that the Green Party’s election campaign saw both the rise and fall of a chance for New Zealand to have its own Corbyn moment. What Metiria Turei did was braver even than Corbyn, who has stood with oppressed people for decades and been arrested doing so; Metiria put her own personal story of living in poverty on the line and was torn down for it. Metiria confessed to the cardinal sin in our beneficiary-bashing neoliberal society: she had lied to Work and Income to get more money when on the benefit because she was not receiving enough money to live on.
Once again, historical context shows a much more illuminating story than the media and mainstream political parties are prepared to accept. In the 1991 ‘Mother of All Budgets,’ National’s Finance Minister Ruth Richardson heartlessly and methodically slashed all benefits to well below the poverty line. She commissioned researchers at Otago University to conduct a report into how much money it would cost to survive in New Zealand and took the very lowest of their estimates, despite warnings that this amount of income could only last people a few weeks before they started developing health problems from malnutrition. Richardson then reduced that already-too-low number by 20%, and set the result as the new level of core benefits. There is no denying the brutality and callousness of her actions. She did it in order to counter rising levels of government debt, believing that cutting benefits for the poorest New Zealanders was a better way to solve the debt crisis than raising taxes on the wealthy, just as inequality was shooting off the charts; she did it because her neoliberal ideology dictated that those who are not in work deserve to suffer in poverty. The 1991 benefit cuts were one of the cruellest acts of state violence in Aotearoa’s cruel, colonial history.
“The people who are responsible are the politicians. Politicians decide if we have poverty in this country; politicians decide if we end it. That is the point of my story.” ~Metiria Turei
Metiria told her story in order to raise awareness of the fact that the welfare system does not provide enough money for recipients to live on. With one of the highest child poverty rates in the OECD, with the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world and people in this country living in cars or on the streets; with the top 10% of New Zealanders owning four times as much wealth as the bottom half of the population, something has to change. Metiria’s story is a vital piece of a broader conversation that we need to have about this inequality crisis. Telling her story cost Metiria dearly, so much so that media harassment of her family forced her into resigning as Green Party co-leader. Her stand was the most courageous political act I have seen in my (relatively short, 19-year-long) lifetime. Green MP Jan Logie, who has somewhat more wisdom and life experience than me, said the same thing on the night Metiria resigned. This movement to challenge poverty and inequality in Aotearoa is long overdue.
Metiria telling her story directly challenged the neoliberal status quo which deliberately keeps people in poverty. That could not be tolerated by the establishment who benefits from neoliberalism. The right screamed from the heavens; the corporate media bayed for her blood; and, perhaps most disgracefully of all, Jacinda Ardern refused to stand with Metiria, saying “you cannot condone lawbreaking”, and ruling her out of any cabinet role in a Labour-Green government. When two Third Way Green MPs, Kennedy Graham and David Clendon, resigned in protest against Metiria and her admission of lying, and Metiria was forced to resign herself, the Green Party election campaign was thrown into disarray, with the party in some polls falling below the 5% threshold to get into parliament. While the election did bring the Greens over the threshold, its MPs are down from 14 to 7, seriously eroding any bargaining power the Greens might otherwise have had in a potential Labour-Green-NZ First government.
What, then, is to be done? What can the left do now to beat National and marginalise the racist voice of Winston Peters in the next general election, in 2020? Was Metiria’s sacrifice for nothing? I shall endeavour to answer these questions in the rest of this essay series!
Update: you can read part two of this series here. Please note that the election results as stated in this essay were subject to minor changes on October 7 when the results of the special votes were released.