Written By: - Date published: 2:27 pm, November 22nd, 2008 - 69 comments
Categories: election 2008 -
Tags:
The official count, including specials has been released.
The Greens have picked up another seat on specials at National’s cost. Kennedy Graham will be the Greens’ ninth MP. Along with Kevin Hague, Graham brings both intellectual heft and a more ‘mainstream’ face to the Greens. Great news.
Labour was just 39 votes short of picking up another seat, also at National’s expense. Maybe if they had bothered to call up those 40 Servos volunteers for the get out the vote effort in South Auckland on election day. Or if some Labour supporters hadn’t had the bright idea of trying to help Winston over 5%. Or if the Workers’ Party, Alliance, ALC and RAM hadn’t wasted 13,000 left-wing votes. Hell, the Greens could have spared 1850 votes and still got 9 seats – maybe if Tane, Irish, and myself had endorsed Labour instead of them 
Oh, well.
Anyway, that just goes to show that every vote does matter.
I’ll do some analysis on where the Left lost ground later on.
[Update: in comments, we're told the servo volunteers were used on election day, great if that was the case but my understanding is still that the get out the vote effort in South Auckland this year was weaker than 2005]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Greens did well out of specials. Well done I suppose. I think the Greens will overshadow a number of Labour MPs in opposition. Should be interesting.
Waitakere closed up a bit and so did Waimakariri.
“Maybe if they had bothered to call up those 40 Servos volunteers for the get out the vote effort in South Auckland on election day.”
Those 40 Servos volunteers were active in South Auckland before and on election day – they were called up alright, as were the thousands of volunteers right across Auckland, so to suggest Labour “didn’t bother” is wrong.
Your other comments are fair enough.
Who isn’t ‘mainstream’ in the Greens?
There’s also the New Zealand Pacific Party. Which is 8, 600 votes. Of which realistically 5,000 would have voted Labour surely.
At the same time, the right lost about 20, 000 votes to the Kiwi and Family party
Which one of the ‘family’ [cough] Jesus [/cough] parties was the Tamaki one. Did he get more votes than he claims members for his cult?
Self Appointed Bishop Bryan prophesied that he’d be in parliament by now didn’t he? Fail.
LOL PB that is the family party.
By ‘mainstream’ you must mean middle class, middle aged, white male? Are you being serious or ironic? Or have you just a wee bit of prejudice against us strong-minded women, Steve?
“Self Appointed Bishop Bryan prophesied that he’d be in parliament by now didn’t he? Fail.”
Nothing as modest as that. He prophesied that NZ would be a Christian theocracy by now (lead by himself of course).
Ken Graham is a welcome addition to parliament – good experience, good sense and presents a far more saleable “Green” face to NZ than the likes of some of the other Green MPs
HS
Than who in the current line-up? And on what grounds do you justify that statement?
I was thinking of Sue Bradford and Keith Locke.
I would suggest that most of the centre of NZ (and those leaning to the right) would feel these two have less in common with Green environmentalism than they do with communism and general shit stirring.
heh
From Density’s website
“Under the strong leadership of Bishop Tamaki and the Destiny pastors, combined membership in Destiny Church has grown.to over 9000 saints.”
Official results:
Family Party (votes) 8,176 (percentage) 0.35
Naughty Saints!!
So now that we have clear undeniable evidence that Brian is a false prophet, I expect to hear him roundly denounced by all the other evangelical bible believing churches. They have no option but to cut all ties with this deceiver of men and trafficker in perniciousness. That which is not of God is of the world, and the prince of the world is the father of lies. There are at least 9000 saints being falsely held in bondgae to demonic forces feigning the badge of the Prince of Peace. Ian Wishart where art thou, that cat that hast thy tongue shall damn thee.
I’m not HS. But to me Keith Locke, Sue Bradford and Sue Kedgley present some problems.
The problem with Locke isn’t that he’s older. Its that his views or interests tend to move the Green party outside where they should be focusing. His views are war, international relations, spying etc etc. Great if you are interested in such things. But it takes the Greens into areas that means their focus on environment, global warming etc is forgotten.
Sue Bradford. Her problem too is she seems to take away from some of the mainstream green issues surrounding the environment.
With Kedgley its hard to tell if she offers anything outside food safety.
—
I’m not a green voter or interested in green issues so I may well be wrong. But I think they stretch themselves too far. And I think there is a need to focus on just a few issues and not cover everything. Those issues most certainly include the environment and maybe social justice. But the results are clear. The Greens who were once the Values party have not increased their party outside the 5-7% they get at elections. Something isn’t working. The fact they were getting such support in the 70s, 80s and 90s tells me they’re not keeping a number of voters and those voters are going elsewhere.
To me there is no reason for the Greens to keep winning 5-7% at election time. They really should be getting 10% or so. I really believe what they get at election is much lower than it should be.
Janet. I’ve got nothing at all against the current Green MPs but we both know that a public perception of the Greens as ‘alternative’ has cost them the ability to grow their vote outside their niche environmentalist support. As ginger has pointed out, the some of the original crop (as much as I agree with their politics) have been one-(minor)issue wonders and their stances on those issues have alienated support whereas the Greens’ actually message and major policies is very attractive to many voters – that’s why I put ‘mainstream’ in brackets, it’s not an issue to me personally but politically it is.
Jon. Glad to hear it if those servos did get called up – I had heard they weren’t.
Pascal’s bookie:
I have just the people for the job.
Steve P.
Sadly this occurrence makes it more likely that Owen Glenn was telling the truth about the tactics used in 2005. It’s interesting to ponder that if Helen Clark hadn’t publically accepted Winston’s version of the truth but had backed Owen Glenn’s version of events, Owen Glenn might have donated again and not blown the whistle on the rort(s) that could have been repeated.
I doubt the Greens will ever increase the % beyond the current one. Unless they lose the Morris dancing, dope smoking , hairy armpit image that they have. And the anti-smacking nonsense certainly did not help.
It must be hard pushing the global warming line ( sorry, I mean climate change ), with so many deniers out there and knowing that the ETS will never make the slightest bit of difference to our seriously buggered enviroment.
As a fringe party they should stick to a few relevant issues where they could actually make an impact. ( You wont believe this , but I heard that prior to the election they came out with an economic policy !!!! . It must have had something to do with the eco bit at the start.)
They could target something like water quality or littering or global population growth. The former and the latter will become the important issues of the future ( as in very, very soon ) and the middle one really pisses me off !
G/C you are not a Green voter so of course those people don’t appeal to you. But there are a lot of people who like their politics. Personally I think Sue Bradford will go down in history as one of the genuine NZ reformers for her determination to keep children free of violence. She was even named by the media as Politician of the year not so many years ago. And she appeals to many worried mothers who have depressed and suicidal children.
Keith Locke gets an awful lot of support in middle class Auckland. And for people of my parents’ generation (the reliable older voters) he represents the staunch pacificism of his famous Locke family, an issue that was and remains major for those who witnessed the 2nd world war. At the ballot box they toss up between who needs their vote more the Greens or Helen (a lot of it was personalised support for her based on her early anti-nuclear and foreign relations work). I suspect post Helen they might go more Green as their grandchildren and greatgrandchildren become more important in their vote.
And my conservative middle class female relations who would tend to vote Act, vote for Sue Kedgeley because she looks like them and cares about healthy organic food, which is also a wealthy middle class obsession.
So I think the attraction of the Greens is on many levels, and can’t be generalised, but I think there is a risk if they get too bland – white male middle class. We need more Nandors to get the youth and alternative vote too.
They are a very successful party, quietly growing in a nice organic way.
If the specials were the election results (i.e. the Nov 8 votes didn?t count) the make up of the government could be quite different.
National polled 4.84% lower, Labour 2.05% higher, Greens 2.70% higher, Maori 1.38% higher. It is interesting to note that those who casts specials – i.e. those away from home, or overseas appear to be more left leaning then the majority of the country.
After running some more calculations this is how the results would of ended up if only specials counted. As you can see the overhang is gone. And the Maori Party becomes the King Maker. We could have had a Labour Government back.
Party name | Party Votes won | Party seat entitlement | Actual Result
Act New Zealand | 3.04% | 4 | 5
The Greens | 9.13% | 12 | 9
Jim Anderton?s Progressive | 0.68% | 1 |1
Maori Party | 3.62% | 5 | 5
New Zealand Labour Party | 35.82% | 45 | 43
New Zealand National Party | 40.61% | 52 | 58
United Future New Zealand | 0.74% | 1 | 1
Totals | 93.64% | 120 | 122
National Government: Nat 52 + Act 4 + UF 1 + Maori 5 = 62/120.
Labour Government: Lab 45 + Prog 1 + Greens 12 + Maori 5 = 63/120
The funny thing is the special votes seem to more accurately reflect the polls in the lead up to the election then the actual election result.
The tables have stuffed up on this reply but detailed analysis is here: http://www.brad.net.nz/blog/2008/11/final-nz-election-results/
“they could target something like water quality”
Russel has targeted water quality his last conference speech was centered on the quality of water or lack of it. And it has been a recurring theme this year
However all the MSM concentrated on at th Greens conference was candle lighting ceremony at the beginning of the conference (in memory of Rod Donald.).
And the “anti smacking nonsense ?” calling the repeal of sect 59 ” anti smacking nonsense” says more about you then it does about the Greens
“Sadly this occurrence makes it more likely that Owen Glenn was telling the truth about the tactics used in 2005″
Apart from the minor detail that there were supposed to be hundreds of witnesses to a crime, and not one has ever been found, or come forward – amazing when you consider that statistically, many of them would now have become disaffected ex-Labour voters.
Owen Glenn may well have been telling the truth about his own suggestion that voters be bribed, which just demonstrates his own cavalier attitude to the democratic process. There is no evidence whatsoever that anybody took him up on his proposal to break the law.
Ginger – I wouldn’t vote for a one issue party. A party should have a views and policies on a range of issues. They shouldn’t try to keep their views and policies hidden like one party I can mention. I think the greens have really good policies, in areas other then the environment and should focus on them more not less. If you looked at the greens policies surrounding open government, for instance, you might like what you see. See this: An Open Government Policy.
Brad,
If the votes cast in my neighbour’s house were the only ones to count, we’d have 120 ACT mps and no-one else would have got a look in.
So what?
Janet – if Greens were mainstream they would have been more open to working with parties across the political spectrum – unfortunately what led to their decision was social policy not environmental policy.
I wish the Greens would stick to environmental issues and the socialist members joined the alliance – people would then be actually voting for what they thought they were voting for.
gs,
They haven’t come forward because they still haven’t gotten their fried chicken yet.
Apparently it was to be provided retrospectively.
But Shankly according to you the Greens don’t actually care about environmental issues.
“Unfortunately many who vote for this party are kidded into believing that the greens actually care about the environment – they don’t.”
What’s changed for you in the last 3 hours?
“unfortunately what led to their decision was social policy not environmental policy.”
Please keep up. The Greens explained the reasons for their decision openly and in great detail before the election. Perhaps that was before you were born yesterday.
More importantly if Shankly thinks people who voted Green didn’t realise what they were getting what does he think National’s new voters thought they were getting???
Platitudes and cynicism I suppose.
That’s what they voted for after all.
outofbed..
And what exactly does calling the anti-smacking bill nonsense say about me?
Apart, of course, from the fact that I am one of the vast majority of people who believe it is incredibly stupid. With good reason.
Actually, my point was that the Greens are not being effective on the things that really matter. Your comment merely confirms that. That is why I no longer vote for them.
Personally, I do all the Green stuff. Recycling, composting, no nitrogenous fertilisers. Anything that is sensible, ecologically and financially .
I feel the Greens have lost their way and are making themselves less relevant, and that is a shame. The election results confirm this, because, otherwise they would be polling around 20%.
“I wish the Greens would stick to environmental issues and the socialist members joined the alliance”
That’s almost impossible and not going to happen.
You bet the Greens will continue its push for more state controls and regulations. They are die-hard socialists. They use environmental issues as their way of conning the gullible, young and old.
“They use environmental issues as their way of conning the gullible, young and old.”
As oppposed to the National party conning….well…pretty much people from all demographic categories you can think of.
Actually the geens dont ‘con’ anyone, they are the most upfront political in the system IMO unlike the sycophantic national party that adopted most of labour’s policies just to get into power.
Bloddy communist?
Ken is (was?) Adjunct Senior Fellow at the School of Law, Canterbury, Christchurch; Senior Lecturer at Victoria University, Wellington; and a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Belgium. He teaches international politics and international law. Ken holds a B.Com from Auckland University, a BA Hons in Political Science from Victoria; an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Boston (Fulbright); and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Victoria University. He was also a Fellow at Cambridge University, studying in the Global Security Programme. Ken has authored and edited five books including ‘The Planetary Interest A New Concept for the Global Age’ which looks at issues of climate change, sustainability and nuclear weapons from a global perspective.
from frogblog
Quoth I’m not saying limit it to one issue. But they don’t need to do everything.That isn’t what we expect in minor parties and yet minor parties have policies for everything. Hence half their message doesn’t even get noticed because they are minor parties. Yes I agree with their open-policy and I’m sure others do as well. But those people will not vote Green because other areas they take the party are problematic and are a turn-off. They have a core now its time to get voters outside their core.
Janet you asked who wasn’t mainstream and I’m telling you those three aren’t. No one wants them to be a party of white males. I’m not saying get in more white males. They lack relevance to young voters outside Turei. I mentioned those three not because of them being female or being older but because they are the ones who issues are largely irrelevant outside the core Green base. You say they are successful.To an extent they are. Since 1999 they have kept their core vote of 5% and been able to increase that in some years to 6/7%. But for a party that hasn’t increased its vote outside that range for 30 years or more is well problematic. Its hard for them to make an argument that the country wants and believe in such policies the Green have when every election they’re bound to get 5-7% support. Fact is I don’t find the amount of votes the Greens get as being spectacular. And I really believe they are capable of grabbing 10% or more. But the more left you take the Greens the less you’ll ever reach 10%. That is a problem. Something you seemingly fail to grasp.
—-
“if the Workers’ Party, Alliance, ALC and RAM hadn’t wasted 13,000 left-wing votes.”
Did it occur to you that maybe those people who voted for the Alliance, RAM and the Workers Party were Alliance/RAM/Workers Party supporters and not Labour supporters? maybe they didn’t want to vote for the party that took New Zealand to war in Afghanistan and presided over the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in this countries history (compare OECD inequality report and growth in the wealth of those on NBR’s rich list)
As for the ALCP, can they fairly be classed as left wing? in their NORML magazine interview they said they would prop up any government that would enact their minimum policy program, if National would legalise marijuana ALCP would support them. And while I support decriminalization, I realistically acknowledge (as I’m sure the ALCP does) that a large proportion of their voters are 20-something stoners who really don’t care about politics or view themselves as being left-wing.