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!
Iprent,
Calling me a dickhead in response to my comment reflects more on you than it does on me.
Furthermore yor response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If Act gained 45 000 votes they gained them from National. Therefore any votes that National gained from Labour were in addition to the votes that shifted further right to Act.
So – I was merely being accurate. I think that you think more with your jock than your brain, a characteristic of a troll. Perhaps you should let the blood level rise and activate another organ.
Act went from being a party similar in size to United Future to one that is considerably less in votes than NZF. Probably the only reason it got into parliament was because it has a leader who is prepared to operate as a clown. After all Hide almost epitimises (with Winston) the adage that any publicity is good publicity. This allowed Act to win an electorate seat with the help of a lot of National supporters.
Should I respect such a pipsqueak performance? Should I respect you for considering that it is politically significant? Personally I’m getting tired of these one-electorate parties. Perhaps we should change it so that if the party doesn’t make the threshold, then they should just get the electorate seats that they win. That will abbreviate the inevitable rise and fall of the one seat wonders.
BTW:
That is about phrase 50 on my troll phrasebook (shortly to be released as Wingnut version 1.0). It is used when the troll in question prefers not to answer the criticism of their previous comment (usually because they didn’t understand what they said in the first place), but prefers to divert elsewhere.
“Personally I’m getting tired of these one-electorate parties. ”
Aye – surely Jim’s well past his use by date.
Isn’t the only reason Jim is a party of one, is that as the leader of a party he gets about 15K more a year.
Iprent,
You’re behaving like a 9 year-old and proving my point that loads of Labour supporters are so upset by the results and so desperate to find excuses that their not learning any lessons.
The 8 or so things that I put forward are based on mixture of my own observations and the observations of my colleagues. Incidentally I’m a Wellington public servant working in an area where frontline workers rub up against back-room policy and comms types.
Lets have a look at some of these assertions of yours.
The rich-prick statement was a single statement from Cullen about something different. Of course the idiotic wingnuts never check facts, they just like being negative.That is also in my wingnut file – which is full of similar idiotic inaccuracies.
The law and order stats show that crime has been going down overall for the last 9 years. Of course there are statistical blips seized on by wingnuts like yourself. In this case according to the police – domestic violence stats have been increasingly reported since they started a campaign to get more reported.
The EFA is actually designed to increase democratic transparency. It simply makes sure that people have to declare their sources of political campaign funds and accurately account for who is running political campaigns. Tell me what is anti-democratic about that?
Anyway, you get the picture – all of your assertions as far as I can see are just troll lines.
BTW: If you follow the usual level of troll stupidity, your next attack line would be about bludger or civil servant. I’ve been in the top 5% of earners for the last 30 years of so. I’m a programmer with an MBA who doesn’t work for government. I also consider that the Act has approximately the moral and mental framework of a 10 year old bully trying to screw down everyone else around..
hs: I agree, also Hide and Dunne.
I think Hide’s coat-tails are going to be quite the distraction for the next couple of years. While there are many ACT followers that are OK types, the party does seem to attract more than their fair share of egos.
I know that plenty of the Natties, as represented here at least, reckon that Key has neutered them but I can’t see that reflected in the coalition agreement. What is the story with that funding they’ve been given to do ‘research’. I/S was asking what budget that would be coming out of and it’s a very good question. The other question raised is why does ACT need to do private research in any case. The obvious answer is to get the answers they want and pay for. Why the taxpayer should be funding this is a seperate question. As is why the National party would agree to this.
But the New National Centrist Party Who is Just Like Labour Without the Nanny but With More Tax Cuts, knows what it’s doing I guess. Maybe they’ll let us in on it one day.
Mind you, all it took for Key to change his mind about Labour’s evil policies that would be the destruction of NZ was losing the election in 05, so perhaps any old crap ACT can pay our money for will be enough to return him to the ever-loving arms of supply-side-Jesus.
Cullen may have been the only one to say rich pricks but loads of people heard it and didn’t like it, it left a lasting impression. Equally Labour had no response to the aspiration angle played by National, the closest they came was referring to Key as “money trader Key”.
I never mentioned overall crime stats, I mentioned violent crime stats (that were more than a blip) and Labour’s reaction to them that suceeded in turning a bunch of people off Labour. Also a break down in violent crime stats shows that it was a lot more than just domestic violence. The large increase in assaults on police for example can not be pinned to the “It’s not okay” adds.
The intention of the EFA was not particularly anti-democratic but the its effect was. Helena Catt agrees with me on that. Poorly drafted legislation routinely leads to unintended consequences, another example is the state (I forget which one) that has parents abandoning 16 year-olds at local hospitals.
Also on the EFA, plenty of people were offended by the manner in which that was written. Electoral law should be passed in a more consensual manner than was the case in this. Goff seems to agree with me on that.
Disagreeing with you isn’t trolling but calling me a troll, a dickhead, a wingnut and an idiot and then showing off about your income is pretty poor form and only further proves my point that plenty of Labour supporters can’t see objectively through their disapointment.
Oli wipes the floor with lprent. FACT.
I think Oli is getting under Iprents skin.
Never heard him having to get nasty or pull out the CV before….
Mike: I just get irritated seeing the same stupid lines getting pulled mindlessly out. You have to admit that whatsitnames monologue was incredibly boringly predictable.
Assertions made without thinking are just irritating. Like maxx – boring dreariness personified.
Actually I get nasty frequently – usually when I’m about to kick peoples arse out of the site permanently. However Oli looked from some of his other comments to actually have a brain – admittedly under-utilized and under-trained. Disappointing to find it spouting mindless regurgitated drivel like any normal troll. So it got treated as partially human to see if it was able to change its behavior (Socratic model). Looks like it may have reached a higher standard. Oh well I’ll leave him alone and see if can maintain a human standard.
Oh well I think I’ve fixed the bug in the code, it will probably clear up the degree of crankiness. These idiots should take up programming and learn a degree of humility. It is like looking into a mirror of your inability to think of obvious solutions.
Pot calling the kettle black there lynmiester.truely.
Iprent,
I’m not regurgitating drivel, I’m talking about some of the hings that formed hardened impressions amongst voters. Often the most firmly formed impressions remain impervious to logic, facts or rhetoric. As it stands your behaviour on this string of comments is a prime example. Because you don’t like what you’re reading you refuse to accept it. There may be plenty of perfectly good arguments against the items I listed but they still had an impact on voters.
Pretty good at describing yourself… But forget the rhetoric. It is usually crap anyway – like listening to a Key or Hyde.
I’d agree that they had an impact on voters. The question is if the effects last. NACT are now in government, the rules change. I’m going to enjoy the next few years. I’ve learned a lot about FUD, now that the amateurs are in the target zone, we can really start to go to town…
I think that 14th December is when the heat wave will get interesting
That sounds suspiciously like Lynn has resorted to a pseudo academic “I know you are I said you are but what am I” argument.
maxx: Hey, that one sounded like you didn’t just spout a canned line. Thats very good. Keep it up.
Iprent,
I was referring to you as much as any voter with that comment you quoted back at me. Also on the Socratic front the greatest lesson we can get from the grand old Greek man is that is that individually any one of us holds such a small part of the world’s total knowledge that any enlightened person knows that intelectual arrogance has no place in the world. For an example of that sort of intelectual arrogance see below:
“However Oli looked from some of his other comments to actually have a brain – admittedly under-utilized and under-trained. Disappointing to find it spouting mindless regurgitated drivel like any normal troll. So it got treated as partially human to see if it was able to change its behavior (Socratic model). Looks like it may have reached a higher standard. Oh well I’ll leave him alone and see if can maintain a human standard”.
Oh dear, it appears to have gotten under your skin. So sad – not!
Probably acts in much the same way that the irritation I feel when I see people making bold assertions based on nothing more than vacuous soundbites based on what someone maybe said in your hearing. Generally when I notice comments like that (after all I scan thousands of comments on here per week), I tend to react with a degree of sarcasm. To let them slide just encourages more trolls. To react by attacking the trolls with the various resources at my disposal helps to increase our readership. You’re actually lucky, most trolling simply gets a permanent ban – I’d suggest that you read our Policy (and I’d suggest avoiding IrishBills more abrupt moderation).
Of course you could always learn how not to attract my BOFH attention. Making boring and unsubstantiated assertions is the second fastest way to attract my site defense responses. It always reminds me of badly written code that needs a good restructure and a strong debugging session.
Of course there are other people of all political stances who don’t get this BOFH problem. I even argue and discuss things with them. But you’ll have to lift your Standard to at least the sites minimum levels. The site comes with the sysop and moderators and their respective irritation levels. After all it is our site.
Anyway, I think thats all I’ll bother discussing behavior with you. You’ll either measure up or you’ll find out what other nice things sysops do when they’re peeved…