Brash to split vote, opens door for Clark

29 comments on “Brash to split vote, opens door for Clark ”

• Comments are now closed

1. higherstandard 1

   23 September 2011 at 10:37 am

   National could run a baby eating geranium on the North Shore and it would win fairly easily.

   Ben has no show.
2. gingercrush 2

   23 September 2011 at 11:06 am

   Very right-wing seat so actually is a good choice for Don Brash. Won’t do him any good. But its going to be a laugh with him and the toxic ex-mayor of North Shore in the race together.
   • Ianupnorth 2.1

     23 September 2011 at 3:25 pm

     Maybe run a white South African and you’d have a chance.
3. Nick K 3

   23 September 2011 at 11:09 am

   It’s so funny that this site was saying just a few days ago Sue Bradford would not split the vote in Waitakere as she was campaigning for the party vote; but Brash will split the vote the other way in North Shore and it’s all over for Maggie.

   It’s just so very funny.
   • Puddleglum 3.1

     23 September 2011 at 11:53 am

     Has Brash said he’s only campaigning for the party vote? (I honestly don’t know).

     Perhaps Brash chose North Shore because he felt he could get a respectable number of votes without threatening a National victory in the electorate? The Goldilocks result: Not too few votes; not too many.

     On a related issue, I don’t get how 39.1% of New Zealanders could vote for a Brash-led National Party in 2005 but, suddenly, Brash is rated by right wingers as having no chance in a blue ribbon electorate (where, under MMP, they can still vote National for the party vote)?? In addition, John Key went from being happy to have been Brash’s Minister of Finance but, a very few years later, was calling Brash’s policies extreme.

     One thing’s for sure, Brash hasn’t changed his ideas one iota in the interim. Why is he no longer ‘in fashion’? 
     • Nick C 3.1.1

       23 September 2011 at 12:28 pm

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5671274/Don-Brash-to-contest-North-Shore

       “Brash says Act’s board persuaded him to stand on the Shore and seek the party vote, where it believes it has strong support.

       ”It’s a very important part of the country for us,” Brash said. ”Originally I planned not to stand in any electorate because I felt it was important to travel the countryside to encourage the party vote, and I’m still planning to do that.”

       He says he would be delighted if people give the party and himself the tick at the election but he is primarily after the party vote.”
       • Puddleglum 3.1.1.1

         23 September 2011 at 1:58 pm

         Thanks Nick C.

         Seems like he is mostly going for the party vote but that bit about “give the party and himself the tick” makes it a bit fuzzy, I would think, for many voters. 
     • lprent 3.1.2

       23 September 2011 at 12:55 pm

       The main distinctive factor about North Shore as an electorate this election is that it has a longstanding sitting local MP (Wayne Mapp) is retiring. If there is likely to be a turnover, then it will happen in those circumstances.

       So no, I don’t think that the choice of electorate was casual. Out of the seats around Auckland held by the right, this would be one of the few that might possibly result in Act actually winning a seat.
   • Lanthanide 3.2

     23 September 2011 at 12:26 pm

     Yeah, I think this is a pretty stupid post by Eddie. Brash is going to campaign for the party vote only and make it very clear that he is doing so. Exactly the same as Sue Bradford.
     • lprent 3.2.1

       23 September 2011 at 12:51 pm

       Almost certainly. But what people campaign for is often not what the voters actually do. But I suspect that Ben would require a lot of vote splitting to get in there.

       However it did make Lyn chortle this morning when I pointed out Don Brashs great record at campaigns. Which personally is what I found the point of the post to be from my perspective, and what I’m sure that eddie intended.
     • Blighty 3.2.2

       23 September 2011 at 4:29 pm

       I think the post is a bit tongue in cheek, Lanthe.

       Everyone knows that there’s hell of a lot of margin for Ben to overcome but you never win a war without upping yourselves.
4. djp 4

   23 September 2011 at 11:30 am

   What makes 2005 the “unloseable election” for the Nats?
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     23 September 2011 at 12:30 pm

     If you look at the way the media were carrying on about it, it was.

     The party went from polling about 25% to close to 40% after Brash’s Orewa speech.
     • djp 4.1.1

       23 September 2011 at 12:55 pm

       >The party went from polling about 25% to close to 40% after Brash’s Orewa speech.

       Which was a pretty good result I would have thought (the election night was very close)

       What probably tipped it into labours favour was the last minute student loan policy (IIRC) and the 800 thousand dollar advertising overspend
       • Puddleglum 4.1.1.1

         23 September 2011 at 1:55 pm

         I think the Brethren thingy and Brash being asked by Susan Woods on Close Up whether or not he was a liar might have also played into the result.
         • djp 4.1.1.1.1

           23 September 2011 at 2:15 pm

           fair point
       • Penny Bright 4.1.1.2

         23 September 2011 at 6:39 pm

         “>The party went from polling about 25% to close to 40% after Brash’s Orewa speech.”

         errr….. small technical point.

         Brash was then Leader of the National Party – not the ACT Party?

         Penny Bright. ‘Independent Public Watchdog’. Candidate for Epsom.
         • Lanthanide 4.1.1.2.1

           24 September 2011 at 11:55 am

           Where did I say that Brash lead the Act party in 2005? What has that even got to do with anything?
5. thejackal 5

   23 September 2011 at 11:52 am

   I wouldn’t count the North Shore as a right wing strong hold just yet. I used to live there and there’s a lot of progressive thinkers that don’t automatically go with one party or the other. The fact that a CGT has high support, even amongst the rich and the argument for privatization has been pathetic might just ensure a split vote gets Clark in. Brash has about as much show of becoming miss universe, and Barry will cave when put under pressure about Nationals archaic policies.
6. BWS 6

   23 September 2011 at 11:53 am

   You’re kidding me, right? The Nats and Act got over 25,000 electorate votes between them at the last election. Twyford, who was well regarded and high up on the list, got 9250 votes. So even if Brash and Maggie split their votes down the middle then the Labour candidate hasn’t got a show. Unless you’re saying Labour’s more popular in the North Shore than they were in 2008 (polls don’t say that) or Clark is more liked than Twyford (in which case why is Twyford so much higher up the list than Clark?).
   • lprent 6.1

     23 September 2011 at 12:57 pm

     ….why is Twyford so much higher up the list than Clark?

     Duh… Because Phil is a sitting list MP? Most political parties* value the experience of sitting MP’s

     * Apart from Act, who appear to value the experience of failed MP’s coming in for another chance at the trough.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   23 September 2011 at 12:44 pm

   Don Brash is gold. His pleading about how everyone really likes him and he only keeps losing because of those pesky kids, never gets old. The parallel story that he got done over because people found out some true fact that he was trying to keep quiet, is just gravy.
8. felix 8

   23 September 2011 at 1:25 pm

   Bit insulting to the good people of the North Shore really, telling them they’re greedy, selfish and stupid enough to vote for ACT.
   • Ianupnorth 8.1

     23 September 2011 at 3:27 pm

     They are mainly South African or Southern POM’s or retired JAFA’s aren’t they?
     • felix 8.1.1

       23 September 2011 at 4:51 pm

       Mostly rich white trash.
     • Anne 8.1.2

       23 September 2011 at 8:03 pm

       Ianupnorth: not all the ex- Sth.Africans on the Shore are right wingers.

       Some at least are politically liberal and not supporters of NAct. Further to that they like Labour’s GST off fresh fruit and veges policy. It seems SA have had the policy for years (it also includes basic grains for making bread etc.) and I’ve been told is simple to operate. The GST is automatically removed from the goods at the check-out counters.
9. Penny Bright 9

   23 September 2011 at 6:27 pm

   Seen this ‘Tui bill board’ banner?

   https://waterpressure.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/tui-bill-board-banner-makes-national-news-our-one-brah-act-holds-key-to-public-purse-hehe-excellent-yeah-right/

   Both Don Brash and John Key support further privatisation of public services, and the replacement of the public service ‘bureaucracy’ with the private sector ‘contractocracy’.

   However – first-time ever research from POGO (Project on Government Oversight) has uncovered that contracting-out public services at USA Federal Government level costs twice as much as providing those services ‘in-house’.

   http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/contract…/co-gp-20110913.html
   “Executive Summary

   Based on the current public debate regarding the salary comparisons of federal and private sector employees, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO)[1] decided to take on the task of doing what others have not—comparing total annual compensation for federal and private sector employees with federal contractor billing rates in order to determine whether the current costs of federal service contracting serves the public interest.

   The current debate over pay differentials largely relies on the theory that the government pays private sector compensation rates when it outsources services.

   This report proves otherwise: in fact, it shows that the government actually pays service contractors at rates far exceeding the cost of employing federal employees to perform comparable functions.

   POGO’s study analyzed the total compensation paid to federal and private sector employees, and annual billing rates for contractor employees across 35 occupational classifications covering over 550 service activities.

   Our findings were shocking—POGO estimates the government pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform comparable services.

   Specifically, POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates—deemed fair and reasonable—that pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than 2 times the total compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services.”

   _______________________________________________________________________

   Isn’t it time now to cut out the consultants and private contractors at central and local government – so that the public majority – not certain private consultants and contractors benefit from public monies?

   Isn’t it time to bring back the Ministry of Works and Council Works Departments – and cut out the private ‘piggies-in-the-middle’?

   What is ‘cost-effective’ about effectively letting private contractors ‘write their own cheques’ when they are being paid with public monies?

   Penny Bright. ‘Independent Public Watchdog’ – candidate for Epsom.
   • Muzza 9.1

     23 September 2011 at 7:55 pm

     Penny you surely know why the ” piggies in the middle ” will not be cut out, & likely grow in numbers Still shaking my head at anyone who fails to see how the Key, Brash alliance is brothers in arms.
10. Rich 10

    24 September 2011 at 2:34 pm

    It doesn’t really make any difference except in the unlikely event that Brash wins and Banks loses Epsom.

    If Ben Clark (didn’t he play back row for England?) wins, then if that distorts the party standings, MMP will compensate and the Nats will get another list MP.

    If you don’t live in Epsom or Ohairu, then it’s entirely reasonable to vote for the candidate you agree with – there is no need to vote tactically for a left-winger that might win.

    (Ok, the other exception is when the Nat candidate is an especial scumbag, like Franks in Wellington, isn’t in a good list spot and has a chance of winning. Or where the Labour candidate is one of the good ones, isn’t in a good list spot (figures) and has a chance of winning. E.g. Wellington Central).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS