Chart o’ the day: failed gambit

38 comments on “Chart o’ the day: failed gambit ”

• Comments are now closed

1. alex 1

   9 October 2011 at 12:30 pm

   People should really be pushing Parker for Epsom. There is now a really good chance that Banks and Goldsmith could split the vote, and Parker could slip through the middle. I’m sure there are plenty in Epsom who aren’t getting a brighter future, even if it is a playground for the wealthier voters.
   • Zetetic 1.1

     9 October 2011 at 12:34 pm

     based on those numbers, parker’s not going to get anywhere close to winning. better for lefties in Epsom to vote for Goldsmith
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 12:41 pm

       It was always only a slim outside chance that enough long time Hide and Key supporters would turncoat and vote Parker this time around, regardless of the ACT shennanigans and various vote splitting scenarios.

       Agree: voting Goldsmith is the way to go.
       • alex 1.1.1.1

         9 October 2011 at 4:49 pm

         But a big push by Parker could possibly get him up to a third of the vote, as far as battles go it wouldn’t be a bad one for Labour to fight hard. They would raise the profile of a credible leadership contender and give the Nats who have assumed they can tell an electorate how to vote a big scare. Would love to see Parker become MP for Epsom, have some faith in your party’s leading numbers man.
         • felix 1.1.1.1.1

           9 October 2011 at 4:55 pm

           No way alex.

           The difference between Banks winning and Goldsmith winning could be as many as 5 MPs.

           In other words, the difference between National being able to form a govt or not.

           Not something to play with for “profile”. Vote Goldsmith.
           • alex 1.1.1.1.1.1

             9 October 2011 at 9:00 pm

             Yeah I suppose Felix, glad I don’t live in Epsom though, that would be one hell of a dead rat to swallow. I’d almost rather just make a party vote, or a protest vote for someone loony. I suppose killing off ACT would be a very good thing though, the worry would be if National drifted right to mop up their base.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 October 2011 at 9:27 pm

               the worry would be if National drifted right to mop up their base.

               ???????? You really don’t get how this works do you.
               • alex …

                 9 October 2011 at 9:42 pm

                 Actually, yes I do. At the moment National is positioning themselves as a majority party, though on their flank they typically lose about 4% to Act, and 1% to other right wing voters, to parties such as NZ1st, Kiwi, and possibly in the near future Conservative. Furthermore, at the moment the media allows them a completely free run whatever policy (or lack thereof) they promote, so they might see an easy opening to pick up that remaining 5% by advocating say, tax cuts for all (including the rich) or the scrapping of the ETS in the name of cutting ‘red tape’. The more centrist voters would stick with them, because they would still like that nice man John, and the more rightwing policies would be fronted by a different MP.

                 Also CV, I said drifted right, not drastically tear up their manifesto and replace it with the pronouncements of Ron Paul. The center ground of politics swings from side to side, and if Labour allows themselves to sound more like National, there is really only one direction National can go to put ground between them. Labour needs to be pulling that centre ground of policy back to the left before they even think about winning elections.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 October 2011 at 10:07 pm

                   Interesting how you can elucidate a highly analytical position which is completely at odds with your “dead rat” style of earlier exposition.

                   In fact you sound like a completely different person.

                   Labour needs to be pulling that centre ground of policy back to the left before they even think about winning elections.

                   Its seven weeks to elections. This suggestion is not relevant.
             • felix …

               9 October 2011 at 9:47 pm

               What’s preferable to you, a National Party with a slightly more right-wing focus winning one seat in Epsom or the National Party winning 5 seats in Epsom via a semi-detached extreme right wing appendage?

               Same amount of right-wing nuttery either way I reckon, different amount of seats.

               Point taken about the rat though.
               • alex …

                 9 October 2011 at 10:03 pm

                 Tough question I suppose, at present right wing ideas such as VSM start in Act, and then become National’s property. If ACT didn’t exist, there would still be an appetite among the right for their policies to get in, and they do have rather large purses compared to other factions, so either a new nutbar vehicle would be created for them, or National would start picking them up.
                 On the other hand, if Act didn’t exist, National could no longer use them as a centrist beard to hide behind, for example when they stomped on the 2025 taskforce.
2. millsy 2

   9 October 2011 at 1:06 pm

   Not over till its over really. I think the real question is whether the voters in the Epsom electorate will go for a redneck working class man turned Tory brawler like Banks, or a fairly middle of the road looking centre-right academic like Goldsmith.
3. ianmac 3

   9 October 2011 at 1:19 pm

   I think that there are 40% undecided in this poll. Suggests that many are thinking carefully instead of blind obedience this time.
   • Zetetic 3.1

     9 October 2011 at 1:31 pm

     if you count up the numbers, you’ll see the candidates have 60% support in total (meaning goldsmith has 55% of decideds). on the party vote, 85% are decided.
     • Lanthanide 3.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

       And most of the party vote is for National.

       Ergo, Epsom voters will choose their electorate vote based on the chances of National governing alone. That means that we’ll likely be seeing Act back.
       • ianmac 3.1.1.1

         9 October 2011 at 3:12 pm

         Which is no doubt the intention of the survey to panic gullible Epson voters back to Act.
       • queenstfarmer 3.1.1.2

         9 October 2011 at 3:34 pm

         I don’t know. Paul Goldsmith is almost certain to make it to Parliament on the list anyway, at 39 on the list (requiring only about 43% for National, which on current polling it will easily achieve).

         So I think regardless of how popular National remains in the polls, the intelligent voters of Epsom will know that they can get 2 MPs – Banks & Goldsmith – and probably a few more Act MPs too, by voting Banks for electorate.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.1

           9 October 2011 at 3:46 pm

           the intelligent voters of Epsom will know that they can get 2 MPs – Banks & Goldsmith – and probably a few more Act MPs too, by voting Banks for electorate.

           Oh all very true. Presupposes one small thing though.

           That the intelligent voters of Epsom want Banks and Brash to get in.

           They can see already that ACT will be a nightmare internally and externally next term, should Banks get in, bringing the others in with him.
           • McFlock 3.1.1.2.1.1

             9 October 2011 at 4:00 pm

             Also supposes that Epsom believe Goldsmith will be “their” MP as a list MP – rather than just moving on up the ladder.

             edit: one not what they really want, the other not giving them his full attention – are two half-quality MPs better than one good electorate MP?
         • lprent 3.1.1.2.2

           9 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

           I believe that the voters had that deal presented to them in 2008. So what did they get?

           My partial list..

           • 1. They got an MP, Rodney Hide, who was immediately found to have been somewhat hypocritical about his use of parliamentary expenses.
           • 2. They got an MP, again Rodney Hide, who ignored most of the recommendations of the royal commission on the Auckland city local body reorganization, and created what is commonly referred to as the Auckland supershitty that will drive up our rates for decades before any benefits appear (if they do). Epsom is widely blamed around Auckland for that screwup and many of the Epsomites are unhappy with it.
           • 3. Richard Worth was turfed out of his ministerial portfolio, out of the house, and out of the party for offenses that John Key was unable to detail to the public or the voters of Epsom. Even the National voters there are unhappy with that.
           • 4. The two for one deal that National implicitly made with the Epsom electorate in 2008 has now resulted in them having to no surviving MP’s and having to break in a new MP. I don’t think that they are nearly as keen on the idea as they were last election.
           • 5. Plus of course they are being asked to put in John Banks, our do-nothing ex-mayor reject from the Muldoon governments. I can’t see any joyous National voters dancing in the streets over that – can you?

           The poll is accurately showing that John Banks has about a sparrows fart chance of winning in Epsom. I thought that Rodney Hide could have carried it and was all geared up to help with that battle.

           In my opinion even if National withdraw Goldsmith, many if not most of the National voters will only cast a party vote or will vote for David Parker to show National that they are tired of their electorate being sacrificial
           • alex 3.1.1.2.2.1

             9 October 2011 at 9:03 pm

             Haha, take that Felix, others are calling for votes for Parker. Please Labour, take the fight to the right in that seat. Parker is a good good MP, he could run on his record of quiet achievement, rather than being a crony politician like Goldsmith.
             • felix …

               9 October 2011 at 9:40 pm

               There’ll always be divided opinions on this question alex. Mine is that if your vote won’t get a lefty in (and it won’t) then it’s best used to keep righties out.

               lprent the two-for-one offer is different this time in one respect: There are no ACToids on the ballot, just Nats. The hostile takeover of the ACT Party ensures that those annoying amateurs are kept out of the way and the good people of Epsom can rest assured that it’s National all the way.

               Whether that makes any difference to the good people Epsom we’ll find out I suppose. I do hope you’re right though.
               • alex …

                 9 October 2011 at 9:47 pm

                 Its a pity MMP hasn’t quite delivered the scenario where everyone can vote for their preferred candidate regardless of where they are, though I suppose it is a damn sight better than any other system.
                 • felix …

                   9 October 2011 at 10:24 pm

                   I agree, we shouldn’t really need to be doing all this tactical voting jiggery-pokery.

                   I intend to vote to keep MMP but I think the rules around the 5% threshold need a good thrashing out.
                   • alex …

                     10 October 2011 at 9:46 am

                     I would rather see the 5% threshold removed altogether actually, at the moment it is ridiculous that NZ1st aren’t in Parliament, even though they got enough for 4 seats. Personally I don’t mind having tiny parties in Parliament, if people are voting for them, then they deserve to be elected. Besides, it would make joke parties seriously question whether to run, as it would mean they might actually get in.
4. Jum 4

   9 October 2011 at 3:20 pm

   Given that the wealthy elite voted for Rodney Hide immediately shoots down in flames any sense of taste or intelligence, unless they are on the receiving end of Hide’s criminal auckland rorting, and then that just makes them greedy and cunning.

   Still no visible sense of taste; cunning is not the same as intelligence or having a sense of ethics.

   There will be a few with ethical standards; I hope we see them out in force voting for Parker.
5. Alwyn 5

   9 October 2011 at 4:11 pm

   Are the figures for Labour and Parker given in the graphic correct?
   In 2008 Labour gor 20.09% of the party vote. This poll shows that they have lost more than half of these votes if they are down to 9.7%
   In 2008 the Labour candidate (Nash) got 17.15% of the candidate votes. Now Parker is down to only a quarter of that figure at 4.3%.
   If these numbers are correct it may be that the latest TV1 and TV3 polls have been exaggerating the Labour party prospects.
   • lprent 5.1

     9 October 2011 at 4:31 pm

     You’re looking at the poll listed landline problem again.

     Having helped setup canvassing for that electorate (in fact I was doing it this morning after being asked to look at it) I can state with absolute assurance that there is a direct correlation between household landlines and the deprivation index there. Meshblocks with poorer people in them have less than half of the landlines than the affluent area right next to them.

     From previous canvassing in 2008, the probability of finding someone at home to answer the phone in targeted canvass populations is a lot lower than either of the adjacent electorates.

     I’m more amazed that they got as high as they did. Polling in Epsom in previous elections for labour was about the same (about half of the election day count). But looking at the phone lines available this election, I’d say that there is a drop of about a third in listed landlines in target groups compared to the 2008 election.
     • Chris 5.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 9:26 pm

       That would be expected wouldn’t it? A larger and larger group of younger people who are wealthy/not poor don’t have landlines anymore. They just have naked broadband and use mobile phones.
6. Judge Holden 6

   9 October 2011 at 8:58 pm

   This is bizarre. Lefites are being urged to vote for a horrible little tory tosspot (rather than a capable Labour candidate), while the tosspot is imploring people to vote for his opponent – a twice defeated failed mayor of whom he is the hagiographer. MMP needs some tweaks.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     9 October 2011 at 9:39 pm

     Whats bizarre about losing Key 4-5 coalition MPs? Damn sensible if you ask me.
     • Judge Holden 6.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 10:17 pm

       Banks losing Epsom would be great. It’s just ridiculous that the system makes it rational for anyone with half a brain to vote for Goldsmith and not Parker, and for Goldsmith to actively campaign against himself. Next thing you know he’ll be leaking photographs of himself snorting P off of Mike Tindall’s chest to Cameron Slater.
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

         9 October 2011 at 10:21 pm

         Next thing you know he’ll be leaking photographs of himself snorting P off of Mike Tindall’s chest to Cameron Slater.

         lol 🙂
7. hoom 7

   9 October 2011 at 9:32 pm

   Yeah, count me in the unlisted landline, not at home to be polled demographic.
   Intelligent & tasteful Epsomites will in my opinion be Party voting Green & Electorate voting whatever has highest chance of making all the Act & Conservative votes become wasted.
8. hoom 8

   9 October 2011 at 9:53 pm

   Judge Holden, its just MMP working as intended in my opinion.
   Exactly this ability for individual electorates to cause interesting implications on the make up of Parliament makes MMP great 🙂
    
   I just wish the threshold was reduced to 1% so that a single-electorate party can’t get several MPs in while one that gets a higher Party vote but below threshold & no electorates misses out completely.
   More parties with broader viewpoint in parliament is better even though I’m planning on using my vote to try to keep out Act under current rules.
   Thats where the political balance is at for now but I’d still be happy for Act to have an MP or two by virtue of a 1% Party vote because Mana & other small parties would be there too.
9. Afewknowthetruth 9

   9 October 2011 at 10:56 pm

   The only matter of much interest is whether the global economic meltdown will come before the election or after it.

   http://gainspainscapital.com/?p=891

   http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/10/gerald-celente-crash-wil-happen.html

   There is one thing we can be sure of: none of the clowns mentioned in the graphic will be of any assistance to the people of Epsom when TSHTF.
   • Lanthanide 9.1

     10 October 2011 at 9:52 am

     I guess it *is* October, isn’t it? About due for a crash, then.
     • mik e 9.1.1

       10 October 2011 at 8:45 pm

       Just a few daze to go when conspiracy theorists have to invent another conspiracy

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS