Written By: - Date published: 6:27 pm, November 23rd, 2008 - 54 comments
Categories: election 2008, labour -
Tags:
54,982 votes, 2.3% of the total. That was difference in the election. If Labour had lost 55,000 fewer votes to National (it lost 142.966 in total, while voter numbers grew 69,000) then a Labour (47), Green (9), Progressive (1), Maori (5) government would have been possible, a more natural and stable government than one that combines ACT and the Maori Party.
While Labour’s vote went down 138,000, the Greens gained 37,000 votes. Combined they lost 100,000 votes, whereas they would have gained 32,000 votes had the vote increased in line with the growing number of voters. Let’s look at where the votes were lost.
So, it’s a pretty consistent pattern across the country – Labour lost 500-2500 party votes in the vast majority of seats (the Left gained votes in only 7 seats). In general, the loss as heavier in the urban seats (but remember, Labour had more votes to lose in those seats). Labour lost 20-30% of its votes in the Auckland seats and Hamilton. The loss in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin was smaller and more went to the Greens.
Votes for Labour in its South Auckland heartland fell more than average. The 14,000 votes lost there account for 10% of Labour’s lost votes in an area that accounts for only 7.5% of its nationwide vote. Turnout in South Auckland (by which I mean the four Ms) was down 10,000 from 2005 and 5000 more votes were lost to the Pacific Party. That’s not a vote for National or right-wing politics but it does seem to confirm that some South Auckland voters disaffected by Labour’s focus on liberal issues. (btw, this rubbish about an extra 100,000 votes being turned out in South Auckland in 2005 doesn’t add up – the increase in Labour votes in South Auckland from 2002 to 2005 was only 12,000, and total vote up only 20,000).
Auckland Central, another seat with previously strong support also experienced a big loss to National. Perhaps next time, Labour will put up a decent candidate who is willing to put the effort in to win. We can see the same pattern in other electorates where poor performing Labour MPs have seen what were once large majorities continue to erode or disappear altogether.
So, what does this tell us? Well, the success of the vacuous ‘time for a change’ slogan appears to have been widespread. The situation, particularly, in South Auckland ought to improve as feelings over the s59 issue will, especially if Labour moves back to its roots in work rights and public services. The importance of committed, strong candidates cannot be over-estimated. One bright side of the losses and change of leadership will be that a new crop will get a look in – as with National in 2002, the deadwood has been stripped.
This election was not lost by a huge amount. Labour’s base remains strong and the reasons for the loss of votes are pretty clear. It amounts to simple message to Labour: re-connect with your core policies, re-connect with your core supporters, and put up energetic candidates who stand for those values.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Useful. Looks more and more like an election that Labour lost – not one that the right won. Hardly surprising after 9 years. About the only thing that the right managed to do well was to be negative for a long period of time, and largely on side-issues and meaningless sound-bites.
Could you send me the spreadsheet? I’m doing some number crunching on the same data. Mostly looking at where the drops in total votes happened. That low turnout is interesting.
yeah, I’ll have to add column titles first
IPRENT – ‘About the only thing that the right managed to do well was to be negative for a long period of time, and largely on side-issues and sound-bites.’
A bit like Labours campaign then, negative. Oh, I forgot, TRUST.
[lprent: The NACT campaign ran from the end of 2005. It was only in the last weeks that they stopped being totally negative. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'long'? Or do you just have a short attention span?]
If is a small word with a big meaning.
If National had of increased it votes, it could govern alone.
The fact is, New Zealand wanted a change and like the USA, got it.
Yes, lets not hope for too much of a change. Costs are high enough at the moment without more foreign corporations getting footholds in NZ and charging more on top of the arguably, already exorbitant prices. Although NZ is capable and in need of further progress for everyone
Good graph, it is looking like an election that Labour lost, the left could have done a lot better…
Brett – the USA voted for change, not a change.
I think its far too simplistic to say that Labour lost the election. National also won the election. Really for National its been three years in the making. In 2005 they clawed back support from the devastating election of 2002 and were 2-3% away from forming the government. This time they consolidated that support, increased their vote and Labour’s vote went down and less Labour voters turned out.
I won’t go into questions of negativity. The left claim National ran negative for three years and the right say Labour went negative in the election. Whatever side you’re on, you’re going to disagree with the other side.
I do have a few questions about these graphs. Do they take into account boundary changes? What about wholly new electorates like Tamaki how do you take those into account?
In regards to Maungakiekie. Far different electorate from 2005. Half of that electorate went to Manukau East, while the electorate extended out into natural National territory. I don’t believe you can treat it the same as the other three South Auckland electorates anymore
ginger. with boundary changes, I’ve taken the comparison based on the former seat that most closely occupied that area. Botany is the new seat and I’ve left it without a comparison.
Boundary changes may be a factor in some of the changes in support – I can’t say.
A comparison at polling place level will be useful, it wouldn’t be affected by electorate boundary changes and nearly all polling places are at the same location election after election/ undoubtedly that’s something the parties will undertake. I’ve tried to make a list of the polling place results for 2008 on the preliminary results but it’s bloody hard work because every polling place has booths for both a general electorate and a maori electorate, and about 500 of them had booths for two or more general electorates – the polling places are listed by electorate and if you want to know how the population living around that booth voted you need to combine the double/triple ups together.. big block of boring work doing it manually. (and you can’t account for people voting away from the nearest polling place to the address they are registered at)
Clint you’re missing one important thing — John Key was clearly the decisive factor on the night. It was his intelligence, and his ability to connect with all voters, that lead National to the victory they easily achieved.
Don Brash tried to be centralist like John Key — it didn’t work. I think from hindsight we can all see that was because he didn’t believe in those centralist policies he put forward. John Key on the other hand was a different story. As much as particular posters on this site have painted him as a liar and a device of the far right, John proved himself to be his own man and a good guy that all New Zealanders could respect.
As for your idea that this so called “mood for a change” was the most important factor in the election result, all I say is prove it. In my opinion the mood for a change was just as much of a factor as it was in Don’s time as it was two weeks ago. The difference for this election however was that National possessed an honest and trustworthy leader. The majority of the public based their voting pattern on this.
Ok thought as much. Good job nonetheless and even with boundary changes there isn’t that much difference in a number of those electorates.
http://www.elections.org.nz/news/2007-media-releases/ceo-media-summary-of-major-features.html – Good link to see how electorates have changed.
Gee, pretty grim reading for the left and they have just lost their 2 better performers in clark and cullen.
Perhaps to stand any chance in 6 years they will not resort to the negative dirt digging and personal attacks that were so prevelant here.
mike.. If you want to see grim reading try making the same graphs for the Right between the 1999 and 2002 elections
ha! for negative dirt digging and personal attacks, you can’t top the stuff that was thrown at Labour in general and Helen in particular over the last few years
deemac, or even the unrelenting ‘advice’ that gets thrown at Steve here.
“ooh you’re so negative you rotten leftie filth, that’s why you lost, because you are all such arrogant wankers, and I’m only saying this because unlike you, I know what real NZers think due to me being made of awesome. wibble.”
In the height of irony, the party that represents that section of the population that is too lazy to work names itself “Labour.”
The Left lost this election because decent New Zealanders voted for a decent society. What we need now is work camps, to introduce the Left-voting parasites to the actual meaning of the word “labour.”
Sarah: What was surprising was how little the right managed to win by. I realize that people locked into a FPP mindset (like DPF and his blue charts) keep thinking of it as a landslide. But in MMP terms it was a narrow victory.
If I was the NACT’s, I’d be very uneasy. It really only takes a single bad political event to cause them to get people voting against them. For that matter it will require extraordinary discipline to maintain their coalition agreements (of various types) for even a 3 year term.
I personally have a difficult time seeing how Key will be able to control his caucuses – doesn’t have the experience
I just hope the Labour Party itself is having a much harder look at itself and the reasons they lost. I am sure they are being alot more critical of their own performance rather than this honorable loss rubbish we are reading here.
National fell into the trap of changing little after their defeat in 1999. They thought they had lost because the country wanted a change. They didn’t realise it was their policies that had been rejected. The result of this failure to critically look at their failings was the 2002 election hammering.
Labour will be back in power one day but this business as usual approach will not win them the 2011 election.
Razor, In 99 Labour ran on actually changing the way things were being done, (taxes, HNZ, ACC, ECA, privatisation) They changed those things and increased their vote when people liked it.
National has adopted most of Labour’s policy from the last nine years, promising little change. They’ve gone into coalition with ACT, and given ACT lots of room to make mischief.
We shall see how that works out for them I suppose.
RL: In 1999 Labour ran on quite different policies to the nats.
In 2008, National ran on the policy basis of being Labour-Lite. It is hard to distinguish any significant difference between Nationals stated policies and that of Labour.
It is kind of hard to see the point of your comment. A bit like trying to find out where the Nat’s haven’t just followed Labour policies.
Of course there is always the usual trait of National, they seldom keep to what they specify as policy. Historically, it has always been “a mandate to change” their policies once in power.
I think the Maori party would be upsat that you think they would would be stable under a Labour partnership and unstable under a National Government.
Maybe they were right when they said Labour treats them with contempt.
Your comment about the vacuous “Time for a change ” slogan should have compared for fairness the Labour slogan ” Dont change horses in mid stream” which was probably equally “vacuous”.
You continually refer to Kiwiblog for some reason , perhaps you wish to emulate them.
As an occassional Kiwiblog reader , although I havent posted on that site I would make some observations.
David Farrar , at least seems to try and put a fair and reasoned veiw across from his right wing perspective whereas this blog makes no pretense at being fair or reasoned in a lot of its postings
Farrar also dosent spit bitter comments at the bottom of postings he dosent agree with.
This blog would be a lot better without those bold black comments which I suspect will be added to this post.
The only positive difference in the sites is the level of posting is probably better than at Kiwiblg
Mark. Farrar does add comments to the bottom, he just doesn’t put them in bold. We add bold because it’s easer for the person we’re responding to to see that we’ve responded.
We do have a higher level of comments (and higher number) than Kiwiblog. To keep the level high, we have to ask some people who just want to rant not to comment – as these people are often Farrar’s regulars we tell them ‘go back to Kiwiblog’
You misunderstand: I say a leftwing alliance including the leftwing Maori Party would have been more inherently stable than one that includes both the leftwing Maori Party and rightwing ACT… it’s not about the Maori Party in particular, its about trying to govern with contradictory ideologies the same would be true if it had been the Greens.
You may disagree but where you go off the rails is saying my views somehow reflect Labour’s views.
Mark. This blog is written from a leftwing perspective. in this post for example, I’m interested in what went wrong for the left, not what went right for the right. But our posts are well-argued. No blog provides the level of statistical analysis we do. We draw on first principles for many of our arguments. We argue our beliefs because we don’t just want people to accept whatever we say but, rather, to think about things. In contrast, most of Farrar’s posts are cut and paste jobs of sections of articles in the media that he approves of. His statements are usually bald statements (eg “The Greens have an extreme anti-road views, but the reality is that NZ’s future includes both more roads and more public transport” – the statement is arguably true but it is not argued, it is presented as fact, true because farrar says it is)
A most impressive effort!
I don’t think I buy the claim that Nat-Act-Maori(-UF) is likely to be unstable. Neither Act nor the Maori Party are likely to want to rock the boat.
Neither party is going to want to let the other drag National too far in the “wrong” direction by opting out and giving the other the big stick of being able to bring National down.
National only need one of Act or the Maori Party to govern and pass legislation. That alone is likely, IMHO, to make them both behave better than if they were both required. They all get more of what they want by compromising than by threatening to withdraw support.
Not to mention the legendary baubles.
“It amounts to simple message to Labour: re-connect with your core policies, re-connect with your core supporters, and put up energetic candidates who stand for those values.”
And promote those policies. I literally wondered for weeks on end when Labour was going to fight National on promoting themselves, rather than attack. Not until the race was well and truly lost did they do so.
The Greens would do well to heed the last of those two as well – connect with potential supporters (face to face beats everything else), and put up energetic candidates and run a 70 seat strategy. There is no reason why they should be limited to several hundred votes in many seats, and rely on Rongotai etc. to get that 157,000.
Steve
fair points
I’ve re-read this a number of times – it’s a lot more balanced than I gave it credit for the first time I scanned it.
Overall, it was a strange result best described as Clayton’s change – the change you have when you don’t want to change. Given this, Labour needs to look a lot closer to home for why this happened given the desire to retain the status quo in terms of policies.
SP’s consistent thesis has been the left wing alliance of L/G/P/MP and his view that it would be “more natural and stable”. Yet using the numbers he has project, the left would only have 62 in total which is a recipe for instability as each party can screw more out of Labour. Conversely, the broader based relationships National has engaged will deliver greater stability because there is wiggle room for one of the parties to throw their toys out of the cot without destabilising the govt.
The left seem reluctant to criticise Labour or particularly Teflon Helen for her failure to include the MP or even attempt to build a relationship. Had this happened, it would have made SP’s argument (about it being more “natural”) more convincing.
Having said that, there is a risk factor for both the MP and the Nats – if they don’t deliver, the MP may simply lose their seats back to Labour. Yet again, it underlines the inherent instability at present with the MP trying to work with Labour when in effect the MP is in a death match for survival.
Steve,
For a champion of MMP, you seem pretty cynical about the chances of this government…
Internationally, cross-”wing” governments are actually pretty common, the Italians do it all the time – granted, they’re not the greatest example for stability, but then again they’re running coalitions of 7/8/9 parties. The French and Germans are also pretty good at that kind of coalition arrangement.
Nveer more grateful for that swinging 2.3%. Hooray!
I agree with Daveski. This election wasn’t about changing direction on the major policy settings of the economy, health, education, etc. It was more about reining in the “born-to-rule” attitude that Labour was beginning to exhibit (ironically, after accusing National of the same thing in the 1990s).
If Labour had dumped HC and some of the other tired full-of-themselves old hands mid-term, and the Greens had shoved Sue Bradford to an unelectable position on the list, I suspect they both would have done a lot better.
Burgeoning bureaucracy is another weak point for the outgoing government. I’m traditionally left-leaning, but I think there’s something to be said for having the right come in and prune once in a while. If they stay moderate, they might even get a second term.
Labour’s greatest strength was Helen Clark. Had Helen Clark not been there I would suggest to you the vote would have been even worse.
It was right for Clark to go when Labour lost but the reason no one even thought of disposing Clark was they knew had they kicked her out their support would have dropped rather considerably.
gingercrush: Tamaki isn’t a new elecorate. It’s been there for many years IIRC. I’ve voted in this elecorate twice — in 2005 and the recent election.
Ack made a mistake. I meant Botany.
I like the way you lefties continue to tell yourselves that the “vacuos message of change” misled the sheople. It means that you’ll miss some of the key points.
In my view the lessons are that:
NZers prefer aspiration to running down the “rich-pricks”.
People didn’t believe Labour’s claims on the efficacy of its law and order policies in the face of widely published violent crime stats.
Bad behaviour from Labour MPs and Mike Williams put people off.
The single most authoritarian anti-democratic piece of legislation since the end of WWII put people off.
People preferred the way that National actually pulished policies whereas Labour just said “Helen’s great, John’s a villian”.
People preferred a lot of the National candidates that were out and about because they actually had real world experience to bring rather than more run of the mill Labour candidates.
Labour took a lot of the (for want a better term) “ethnic minority” votes for granted when National and Act got in amongst it on this front.
Finally in your calculations as to how many vote National took of Labour you alos have to think about how many votes Act took off National and National still won a bunch more votes than Labour.
Oli: Apart from being a dickhead, you obviously can’t count.
From memory, Act managed to increase by about 45k voters between 2005 and 2008. That of course still left it as a minority interest party trailing NZ First. Probably the only reason that Act managed to get into parliament this time was they had a clown leading it who is good at dropping people. It is amazing how much people will vote for clowns – ask Winston.
I do hope you keep up this claim that the election was a “vacuous time for a change vote” for as long as possible. National needs people like you to help keep the Left’s head firmly fixed in the sand.
But really, if you can’t respect the voters, why should they respect you?