David Clark on Dunedin North

44 comments on “David Clark on Dunedin North ”

• Comments are now closed

1. just saying 1

   28 September 2014 at 9:55 am

   I suspect you won’t be participating here, David, but I’ll direct my comment to you anyway.

   Support for Labour has been steadily dropping in the (long) time I’ve been here. Dunedin is more left-wing than most places and the party is fortunate to have maintained a solid core of supporters down here who would vote Labour if it stood the proverbial chimpanzee with a red rosette.

   Having said that, you and your team did run a very good campaign, and you’ve worked hard these past three years.

   The problem is, you and Labour don’t represent me and you don’t represent large numbers people down here (and throughout the country). And the people you best represent do quite nicely no matter which party is in power.
   • r0b 1.1

     28 September 2014 at 10:07 am

     I wish that you actually knew David! Why not come along to a meeting some time? (Alas that I have to run, will be off line until late tonight.)
     • just saying 1.1.1

       28 September 2014 at 10:16 am

       I’ve met him a couple of times and liked him as a person.
       This isn’t about personalities.
       • r0b 1.1.1.1

         28 September 2014 at 10:02 pm

         I think if you knew him better you’d have a different perspective on who it is that David is in parliament to represent.
   • Paul Campbell 1.2

     28 September 2014 at 6:18 pm

     I don’t think that is true, Labour essentially did run a chimp with a red rosette in Dunedin North back in the 70s and we has a 1 term National MP Richard Walls
     • r0b 1.2.1

       28 September 2014 at 10:03 pm

       An excellent point, and a lesson that has never been forgotten. Don’t take the electorate for granted!
2. red blooded 2

   28 September 2014 at 10:07 am

   David Clark is a dedicated, open, thoughtful guy and I’m glad that he represents me in parliament. He’s right to say that party vote rested on a lot more shoulders than his, though. There’s a very motivated team in this electorate and the efforts leading up to and on election day are always quite a slog for some.
   It’s prett sad to be celebrating 24 votes, though. After all, it’s the total number and proportion of the party vote that actuall counts, not the electorate by electorate breakdown. Dunedin North hung on because of local people and local issues, but the national campaign still saw thousands of people who voted for Clark give their party vote to Team Key.
3. KJS0ne 3

   28 September 2014 at 10:16 am

   Clare is an egotistical machavellian ABC MP and needs to go. Clark on the other hand, while a bit arrogant at times, has his heart in the right place. The gerrymandering of Dunedin North to include a lot of National leaning districts certainly didn’t help, and it is testament to Clark’s hard work that DN maintained a slight Labour majority party vote. Do bear in mind also though that if you include the Greens, the left block smashed National in the party vote in DN North

   I really have to disagree with him about Vote positive though. A lot of people I know really felt that was meaningless, and a lot of people I know voted Labour in Dunedin simply because they couldn’t stand the alternative.

   Dunedin is a Labour town, it was always going to buck the national trend.
   • swordfish 3.1

     28 September 2014 at 10:39 am

     Yep. Dunedin has certainly been a stronghold for the Left Bloc for quite a few Elections now (with Wellington a close second over the last 6 years). So the fact that Labour managed to (just) win the Party Vote in Dunedin North on Election Night doesn’t in itself say anything about the swing (and, if Specials go the same way in DN as they did in 2011 then the Nats will end up slightly ahead in the final result).

     However, a comparison of the 2011/2014 Election Night results (ie excluding Specials) in both Dunedin North and Dunedin South does indeed suggest the City recorded weaker swings away from the Left compared to New Zealand as a whole.

     In Dunedin North, Labour are down 2.1 points and the Greens 0.6, roughly two-thirds to three-quarters the fall nationwide. And the Nats were barely up at all.

     In Dunedin South, both Labour and the Greens fell 1.6 points, a poor result for the Greens, but good for Labour. What’s more, the Nats suffered a slight decline as well.

     None of which, of course, takes into account boundary changes. Sounds like they favoured the Nats in Dunedin North, so the result there is even better than my comparison suggests. Not sure what the effect of boundary changes in DS was though ?
     • Ergo Robertina 3.1.1

       28 September 2014 at 10:45 am

       Not sure what the effect of boundary changes in DS was though ?

       There was no boundary change in Dunedin South.
       • swordfish 3.1.1.1

         28 September 2014 at 11:13 am

         Cheers.

         Well, that was a good result for Labour in Curran’s Dunedin South, then. She presided over a pretty woeful Party-Vote result for Labour in DS in 2011 (Labour down 11.8 points compared to 6.5 nationwide / Nats up 6 points compared to 2.4 nationwide).

         Labour also suffered way-above-average losses in Clark’s Dunedin North in 2011 (albeit the swing heading much more in the Greens direction compared to Dunedin South).

         Good to see things have changed dramatically in 2014.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1

           28 September 2014 at 12:43 pm

           to be fair, David Clark was an unknown candidate going into 2011, whereas Pete Hodgson had been a Cabinet Minister and long time MP for the city. Now as a known face and someone who has built a reputation as a hardworking local MP, Clark’s electorate majority shot up this year compared to 2011.

           On the other hand, Labour’s electorate majority in Dunedin South has fallen each and every time that Clare Curran has stood.
           • lurgee 3.1.1.1.1.1

             3 October 2014 at 1:23 pm

             Similarly, David Cunliffe has found fewer people voting for him in New Lynn each time has has stood as a candidate, and the party vote has fallen every time as well.

             If Curran is a hopeless reject , as evidenced by her persistent decline, doesn’t that mean Cunliffe is as well?
     • mickysavage 3.1.2

       28 September 2014 at 12:00 pm

       Thanks Swordfish. I calculated Dunedin South as dropping 4.2% party vote percentage points (2014 % of total – 2011 % of total. What formula did you use?
       • swordfish 3.1.2.1

         28 September 2014 at 12:43 pm

         @ micky

         Labour Party-Vote Dunedin South

         2011 (Final Result) 12,326 34.97%
         2011 (Election Night)* 11,536 35.06%
         2014 (Election Night)* 11,539 33.51%

         2011-14 Diff 35.06 – 33.51 = 1.55 points (rounded up to 1.6)

         * Election Night = includes Advanced but not Specials
         • mickysavage 3.1.2.1.1

           3 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

           Gocha I had two digits transposed in my 2011 figure.
   • Colonial Viper 3.2

     28 September 2014 at 12:40 pm

     The gerrymandering of Dunedin North to include a lot of National leaning districts certainly didn’t help, and it is testament to Clark’s hard work that DN maintained a slight Labour majority party vote. Do bear in mind also though that if you include the Greens, the left block smashed National in the party vote in DN North

     Agree with all these comments – the Dunedin North campaign and David Clark worked real hard to counted the several thousand vote influence the stretching of electorate boundaries towards North Otago had.
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1

       29 September 2014 at 8:37 pm

       Honestly, if Gerrymandering is happening anywhere other than an electorate where a lifeboat party is running, why should we even care about it?

       Much better to focus on Party vote turnout, and correcting the misapprehensions of many New Zealanders that their electorate vote matters to the makeup of Parliament if they’re not in Epsom, Ohariu, or Te Tai Tokerau. (Potentially it matters if you’re in other Maori electorates, but only if the Maori Party gains a third electorate MP or less of the Party Vote)
   • Ant 3.3

     28 September 2014 at 12:49 pm

     Agree KJS0ne, ‘vote positive’ was meaningless and insipid. For me Labour’s message should always be roughly based around socail ideals of work, fairness, and prosperity. Most of the other important issues for Labour can fit under those things including identity and environmental issues.
     • Colonial Viper 3.3.1

       28 September 2014 at 4:14 pm

       Yep. But some identity politics advocates feel that having those policies headlined in lights is just as important as having the actual policies enacted by Government. The irony – sometimes (though not always) you can only do one of those things, but not both.
   • Machen Marie 3.4

     30 September 2014 at 9:50 am

     Clare Curran is down-to-earth and responsible to her constituents. She promptly makes time in her schedule to meet with anyone facing a problem they think a government voice might help. Your comment that she is an “egotistical machavellian ABC MP” is only a reflection on your views. Clare represents some of the most fragile in our society. She rolls her sleeves up and tries to help on a local and personal level.

     Your comments are a symptom of the problem that Labour has in parliament. The fractionation in Labour is what killed them. Squabbling for power among themselves and knifing Cunliffe in the back at every opportunity does not make for a strong party. I believe Cunliffe needs to clean house and get rid of the dissension. The only way forward for the left voting parties is for Labour to stop fighting amongst themselves and align their strategies with other Left parties.

     I’m glad that South Dunedin still has Clare Curran. She looks out for the most vulnerable people in Dunedin and is a great asset to our town. A society is only as strong as it’s most lowly family.
     • KJS0ne 3.4.1

       3 October 2014 at 1:00 pm

       Haha, you clearly do not know Clare very well… The irony of course being that squabbling for power and kniving Cunliffe in the back is exactly what Clare has been up to the past 9 months.
4. Bill 4

   28 September 2014 at 10:47 am

   There’s something unsettling about David’s analysis/perspective that I can’t quite put my finger on.

   Meanwhile

   The days of mass-membership may have passed…

   Well, no. When people have something to believe in, they engage politically and also join political parties. Witness Scotland, where party memberships for the parties on the losing side of the referendum have essentially tripled since the count was announced.

   The SNP is now the third largest party in the UK – over 65 000 members – from a population base similar to that of NZ and about one tenth that of the UK as a whole. The Scottish Green Party and Scottish Socialist Party have also seen their memberships mushroom by thousands.

   Meanwhile, perhaps instructively, the BAU Scottish Labour Party – one of the parties that prevailed in the referendum, has attracted, they themselves claim, ‘hundreds’ of new members (total unknown because they don’t make it public).
   • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1

     28 September 2014 at 12:35 pm

     Well they are a relatively new party, that is cheap to join ( 1 pound a month), I think they have only been majority government in Scotland since 2011 and havent even had a chance to have an election. Plus the referendum has been a magnet issue for them.

     IF they had referendum in 90s, probably would have won and gone headlong into disaster with the GFC just like Iceland and Ireland.

     Banking was seen as a Scottish specialty and unlike Iceland the people wouldnt have overturned the decision to bail out the banks.

     I remember the Bank of Scotland having tons of easy money for speculators in Auckland in around 2006.
     The effect on Scotland would have been worse than Ireland
     • Bill 4.1.1

       28 September 2014 at 12:47 pm

       The SNP isn’t exactly a new party (formed in 1934). Dunno when the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party were formed, but it’s safe to bet they haven’t been around so long.

       Membership of $2 per month for the SNP is way above the current $5 per year I payed last year to join NZ Labour.

       When you talk about the referendum being a ‘magnet issue for them’, are you meaning for the SNP, Greens and SSP, or the people of Scotland? Since independence has sat at the core of the SNP since its inception, I can only assume you mean for people in Scotland. And that was my point, no? When people have a reason to engage, they engage and a spin off of that is that party memberships swell.

       Obviously, independence isn’t an issue that would galvanise people in NZ. But what about AGW – on its own terms, as well as a mechanism by which to challenge our economic neo-classical orthodoxy?

       Just a thought.

       edit – elections for the Scottish parlaiment have been held in ’99, ’03, ’07 and ’11(when the SNP won an absolute majority in an environment of proportional representation). Turnout has been low. Between 50 and 60 %. BUT. 90%+ registered for the referendum and 80%+ voted. Just goes to show, eh?
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2

       28 September 2014 at 2:23 pm

       Well they are a relatively new party, that is cheap to join ( 1 pound a month),

       Compared to NZ parties that are usually around $5 for three years. The Internet Party is $1.69 for three years.

       It’s not the cost of joining that’s the problem but the fact that, IME, political parties don’t engage the members once they’ve joined. In the case of Labour, actively ignore them.
       • Murray Olsen 4.1.2.1

         29 September 2014 at 1:55 am

         The Greens keep sending me stuff thanking me even though I’ve never joined and can’t remember ever doing anything specifically for them. I got the impression that I’d be far from ignored if I actually joined up.
5. red blooded 5

   28 September 2014 at 11:33 am

   So, your message is..? “Don’t worry if you don’t win the vote, so long as your membership increases”..?

   We have to win the confidence of people who don’t necessarily see themselves as politically engaged. Key’s fawning masses aren’t all party members, but they are devoted and they have stayed loyal to him much longer than I, for one, expected them to.
   • Bill 5.1

     28 September 2014 at 3:12 pm

     Was that comment a reply to mine above? If so, my ‘message’ has got nothing to do with winning or losing a vote, but rather, the fact that people will engage when they see a reason to engage. And that when they’re meaningfully engaged (ie informed) that they will stay engaged and keep pushing.
6. newsense 6

   28 September 2014 at 11:37 am

   Would his brother like Mt Albert? It would have a nice ring to it. Good to see what a city united can achieve.
   • left for dead 6.1

     28 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

     nothing good about losing the party vote yet again,in Dunedin South.Have another look at those stat’s.By the way MickeySavage,will you not release that list you are compiling on the Labour caucus misfits/cretins.If we have to spill blood,lets have all the facts,for a cleaner fight.

     [lprent: So get off your lazy arse and do it yourself. From memory, the specials still have to be counted and should be through at the end of the week. We’re all short of time to do anything.

     Demanding things of authors is bloody stupid. Read the policy.

     Banned 1 week. That should give you time to do your own analysis. ]
     • Yoyo 6.1.1

       28 September 2014 at 1:55 pm

       He’s right that there’s nothing good about losing the party vote.
     • Ovid 6.1.2

       29 September 2014 at 8:54 pm

       Obviously the 2014 results are unavailable, but here’s the polling place analysis for party vote in Dunedin South in 2011. Places like Andersons Bay and Taieri where there are a lot of flash new homes and Mosgiel, where there are a lot of retirees, went heavily National. There’s a rough correlation between those results and the map of economic deprivation.

       In short, there have been demographic shifts and gentrification.
   • newsense 6.2

     28 September 2014 at 2:50 pm

     Eh. Not a helpful comment of mine really. But the Clark brothers seem to be good Labour talent coming through. When Key says that he is over things that happened in the 80s, it resonates.
     • Colonial Viper 6.2.1

       28 September 2014 at 4:18 pm

       Of course he is over the things which happened in the 1980s. He was well on the way to becoming an investment banker by that time. The financialisation of the economy suited him fine.

       Core Labour Party constituency on the other hand – are still feeling the scars inflicted in that decade.
       • newsense 6.2.1.1

         29 September 2014 at 11:05 pm

         see Jenny Kirk below for what I meant.
7. left for dead 7

   28 September 2014 at 1:27 pm

   Look Lynn,I have those Stat’s.Demanding things of authors,is stupid,it was my clumsy way of pointing out Mis Currans poor record,over Cullens.

   [lprent: So put them up, and be careful about demanding that authors do certain things. I have a hair trigger for that trope. Bad enough when people demand and don’t request from other commenters. Ban rescinded subject to future behaviour. ]
   • left for dead 7.1

     28 September 2014 at 2:58 pm

     Thank you,will do better.regards Alex
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   28 September 2014 at 2:03 pm

   The days of mass-membership may have passed,

   Only because the parties have let it pass in favour of focus groups and polling. Hell, even National used to be a mass membership party, now it’s membership is seemingly limited to corporations and business people with the result that they have policies that benefit those groups but are detrimental for NZ as a whole.

   If we want the political parties to reflect us then we need to join them en-mass again and the parties need to encourage that. How they do that is up to the individual party but my suggestion is engaging members more in the policy creation process rather than dictating policies from on high.
9. Jenny Kirk 9

   28 September 2014 at 8:02 pm

   Please – everyone – and David Clark – go onto The Political Scientists’ blogsite and read his (her ?) post on “Drawing the Poison”. As a member of the Lange govt 1987-1990 I find what the Political Scientist is saying is remarkably accurate. There is a hangover from the Rogernomics years which has not yet left the Labour caucus, and these people continue to dominate Labour policies and politics – and the general voting public do NOT like it, and nor do they like the very public sniping and snarling which goes on via the meda when someone like David Cunliffe tries to take the Party left and towards a more socially conscious policy setting.

   Here is the link to the blog I’m talking about.

   http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/

   ” Drawing the poison
   Posted on 26th Sep, 2014 by Puddleglum
   It’s – more or less – thirty years since Roger Douglas’ faction gained control of the Treasury benches. It’s even longer since it latched its fangs onto the Labour Party jugular.
   The bloody leadership struggle within the Labour Party since the election is pretty much an anniversary reminder that Douglas’ legacy lives on.
   That’s because the poison that the Douglas faction injected into the Labour Party has never fully worked its way out of the Party’s system – for a simple reason: It has festered in the huge, dry crack the Douglas faction opened between the Labour Party caucus and the Labour Party itself…………
   • r0b 9.1

     28 September 2014 at 10:06 pm

     Thanks for that Jenny. You were in the middle of history – ever thought of writing about it?

     The permanent link for Puddleglum’s post:
     http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/drawing-the-poison/
     • Jenny Kirk 9.1.1

       29 September 2014 at 8:57 am

       One of these days, rOb, I’ll sort out my papers and try and put down some semblance of what went on …. I’ve tried a couple of times, but it all still makes me too angry (even after almost 3 decades !)

       But all I’ll say now, is that Puddleglum has written an analysis in his post Drawing the Poison which really resonates with me, and what I have experienced and observed within Labour over all these years. Labour supporters need to reflect on Puddleglum’s post and work out from there some way in which the Rogernomics poison can be removed from the real Labour Party which still struggles away in the background.
10. Tom Gould 10

    29 September 2014 at 10:35 am

    Want to know what’s wrong with the Labour party and how come they got thrashed? Just read the venal anti-ABC attacks on Clark and Curran as right wing patsies and sell-outs and class traitors. The cultural revolution and the purge is underway. Brace yourselves.
    • the pigman 10.1

      30 September 2014 at 2:19 am

      Yes, yes Tom, and we all know you’re a sensible counter-counter-revolutionary. Reading from the beginning of your post, you appear to be saying Labour got thrashed because supporters of the leader (the majority of the NZLP) have called bullshit on parts of the caucus undermining him. On the likes of the highly undisciplined Clare Curran firing broadsides at Tat Loo on twitter today.

      So sorry that standing up to caucus bullying is unacceptable to you.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS