Parliamentary years

As we’ve noted earlier, the National spin (a la Mr Farrar) is that the Cabinet reshuffle is tired. Old. Recycled.

But it got me thinking, the National team must be really, really fresh compared with Labour. I mean, Clark and Cullen, Mallard, King and Goff came in the eighties, for crying out loud! But not one to base my opinions on hearsay and speculation, I thought I would actually work out what the relative differences in average time spent in Parliament was between National and Labour’s top twenty MPs.

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations National’s top twenty have spent, on average, 11.75 years in Parliament. For Labour’s top twenty, the average is 13.85. So the difference between the two teams’ averages is less than a parliamentary term.

Oh, and just for DPF, I should mention the medians are 11 and 14 years respectively. So, the cumulative experience of the two top twenty members is pretty comparable.

If National’s average was like its Leader - 6 years - then I think it might be justified in boasting about its ‘freshness’ compared with Labour. But the differences between the two teams is simply not as dramatic as National is trying to have you believe.

So, forget about this argument about freshness. Just think about the match-ups: Goff and King v Power (no contest), Mallard v Smith (non-stop brawls), Carter v Rich (TKOs).

Key has to do something pretty dramatic, doesn’t he?

Tags: election, Labour, national