Draft electoral boundary changes released

Written By: - Date published: 10:22 am, November 21st, 2013 - 105 comments
Categories: conservative party, election 2014, national, paula bennett - Tags: ,

elections mashup

I blogged about these previously.  I thought that there would be a new North Harbour seat and that New Lynn and Maungakiekie would change dramatically.

The draft boundaries have been released and suggest that this will happen but there are some radical changes proposed.

Christchurch will obviously change.  Christchurch East will expand dramatically and the surrounding seats will also be affected.  I am not qualified to say what the political implications are and I would invite comments from Cantabrians who understand the area.

In Auckland there will be a new seat.  Out west the changes are significant.  The proposal is that there is a new Upper Harbour seat that takes Massey from Te Atatu, West Harbour and Hobsonville from Helensville, Greenhithe, and part of Glenfield.  It will lean National but not strongly so.  Waitakere gets divided up so that the rural area gets added to Helensville and some of the urban part gets added to Te Atatu.  The balance, and part of Te Atatu and New Lynn, gets added to a new Kelston seat that looks like a Labour stronghold.  New Lynn becomes quite marginal but I am sure that David Cunliffe can handle it.  Scarily I personally could be living about a kilometre away from being in the electorate of Helensville.

Mount Albert creeps inward to Auckland Central which contracts and becomes safer for National.  Mt Roskill becomes slightly less safe and Maungakiekie becomes more likely for Labour.

Out south the changes should not be dramatic although the seat of Hunua has too many voters and sheds these to neighbouring seats.

The big question is what seat will Colin Craig stand in?  The new seat of North Harbour is a possibility but I suspect that it is not safe enough for National to risk a Labour candidate coming through the middle and succeeding.

There are rumours that Murray McCully may only seek election on the list and if to then East Coast Bays could be the seat for National to gift to Craig.

The other interesting question is where would Paula Bennett stand?  As reported by tv3:

And in some outrageous misfortune for Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett, her Waitakere seat will disappear, instead becoming Kelston – a real Labour seat.

Ms Bennett has called a crisis meeting of her electorate organisation for tomorrow night, signed “proud to be a Westie”.

While she said “there’ll always be a bit of west” in her, there’s now plenty of doubt about whether she’ll have an electorate there.

Bennett may be proud to be a westie but we are not proud that she claims to be one of us.  Her options would appear to be to hope that Key goes list only and stand in the seat of Helensville, have a go for the North Harbour seat, or stand in Kelston and get thumped.  She may need to rely on the list if she wants to continue her parliamentary career.

Update:  Paula has indicated that she will bail and seek the Upper Harbour nomination.  This means that it is unlikely to be gifted to Craig and East Coast Bays looks very likely.

105 comments on “Draft electoral boundary changes released ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. King Kong 1
    21 November 2013 at 10:31 am

    Sung to the tune of “lets all do the conga” All together now

    We have got a coalition partner
    We have got a coalition partner
    Nah nah nah nah (hey)
    Nah nah nah nah

    • mickysavage 1.1
      21 November 2013 at 10:37 am

      How do you feel about going into coalition with a group of fundamentalist christians oh primatial one?

      • vto 1.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 10:40 am

        ha ha – will make for some great comedy. And for some great blowing apart at the seams. Hee.

      • King Kong 1.1.2
        21 November 2013 at 10:50 am

        You know how it is Micky. You have got the same issue with the bunch of crazies that you guys have to cuddle.

        You hold your nose and keep sliding into the back seat of the ministerial beemer.

        • mickysavage 1.1.2.1
          21 November 2013 at 10:54 am

          Some of my best friends are greens KK and I respect their world view. How about you? Happy with dissing evolution, science, women’s rights, rights for gay and lesbians …

          • King Kong 1.1.2.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 11:01 am

            But no respect for Christians? I thought your best buddy Dave was a Christian?

            Or perhaps tarnishing all Christians as fag hating science deniers might be a bit unfair.

        • Tracey 1.1.2.2
          21 November 2013 at 11:03 am

          “bunch of crazies you lot have to cuddle”..

          like this

          “trained as a chartered accountant, has run his own small business, and currently works in community health”

        • Paul 1.1.2.3
          21 November 2013 at 4:35 pm

          The crazies are on the right KK
          Caring about the environment is not crazy. It’s about the sanest thing you could do.

  2. gobsmacked 2
    21 November 2013 at 10:35 am

    The word “draft” seems to have passed over the heads of many journos and pundits.

    It’s a sad day when proper discussion and decisions about NZ electorates (i.e. geography, compatibility) is over-ridden by one question, about one man, who has been elected to … nothing.

    In the USA this is common: district boundaries are drawn for the politicians, not the voters. It shouldn’t happen here.

  3. Ad 3
    21 November 2013 at 10:36 am

    Absolutely vital that Labour and Greens get this right. The North Harbour seat is potentially winnable if the Greens step aside and enable National and the Conservatives to split each other off. This kind of opportunity won’t arise again for quite some time.

    In return Labour could consider pulling out of the Waitakere Ranges area to enable the Greens to harvest higher party votes from the Blue-Greens up there in the forested hills. And their donations.

    Similarly for specific areas like Waiheke Island which although not an electorate seat has a high Greens activist base. Labour could effectively not campaign there and leave the Party votes to the greens entirely.

    In return the Greens could withdraw their candidate from Auckland Central to enable Labour an electorate win against National’s Member.

    And while we are at it, be bold and put Grant Robertson on the list, and enable the Greens to get an electorate seat in Wellington. Thhis could conceivably make the whole coalition safer.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      21 November 2013 at 10:40 am

      +1

      At the minimum there needs to be full blooded discussion on these points

      • Salmon 3.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 11:54 am

        My analysis of the polling booths in Upper Harbour at the last election shows around 20,000 National votes, and around 7,000 Labour votes. Doesn’t look very winnable to me.

        But I don’t know the area very well, so I could be missing something.

    • karol 3.2
      21 November 2013 at 10:43 am

      Ad, the Green’s always do step aside in some electorates and urge voters to vote for Labour’s candidate. It’s voters who don’t get the message.

      Remember also, National stood Goldsmith in Epsom – they maneuvered via delivering a strong message to Epsom Nat supporters to vote Hide/Banks.

      • bad12 3.2.1
        21 November 2013 at 11:04 am

        Yep, i concur, ”there needs at the least to be a discussion”, it’s blindingly obvious that National are going to try and ‘legally’ rig the 2014 election by gifting Colin Craig a safe electorate just as they did for Bank’s in Epsom,

        Where the hell are the cross party talks, all this ”we will wait for the voters to decide” is utter fucking hogwash from the parties of the left,

        There needs to be deals done between Labour and the Green party and there needs to be deals done between Labour and the Mana party surrounding the Maori electorates,(and pretty fucking quick because if National become the next Government not reliant upon the Maori Party to prop it up you all can bet that the Maori electorates will be in their sights for abolition),

        National supporters would seem more ‘onto it’ when it comes to holding their nose and voting for something that smells deeply of corruption if it will ensure National’s re-election and the left need educate it’s voters in how they should cast their votes to ensure a Government of the left and my opinion is that in certain electorates advertising where it is desired to have voters split their votes should become as specific as the law allows…

        • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 2:14 pm

          “(and pretty fucking quick because if National become the next Government not reliant upon the Maori Party to prop it up you all can bet that the Maori electorates will be in their sights for abolition)”

          Such a change would require a referendum, and probably have a threshold of 67% or 75%. Which I expect would lose.

          • bad12 3.2.1.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

            Lanth, your proof please that abolishing the Maori electorates will require a referendum…

            • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1.1.1
              21 November 2013 at 5:16 pm

              There is no legal requirement for one, of course.

              But to suggest that a NZ government would try to make such an electoral change without getting public support in a referendum first is pretty much crazy talk. The government would literally be a dictatorship for that to happen.

              IIRC the Maori Party was trying to get the Maori Seats ‘entrenched’, but such a move would be purely symbolic and I believe National didn’t go for it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                21 November 2013 at 6:49 pm

                Yeah we definitely don’t want to start making arbitrary changes to our electoral and constitutional norms. You open that door and the slide to becoming a banana republic will be fast and horrific.

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.2
        21 November 2013 at 11:20 am

        Remember also, National stood Goldsmith in Epsom – they maneuvered via delivering a strong message to Epsom Nat supporters to vote Hide/Banks.

        And Goldsmith spending time pulling up signs supporting him…

        • jaymam 3.2.2.1
          21 November 2013 at 11:55 am

          How about Labour (or Greens or Mana or NZ1) making and erecting Goldsmith signs with a proper (Labour etc) authorisation statement on them? National will then be unable to remove them. If they try, there’ll be lots of lovely video and photos of them.

          • Lanthanide 3.2.2.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 2:16 pm

            Seems Labour would have better thing to spend their money on, like winning marginal seats.

            Not sure what the rules are around 3rd parties doing something like you’re suggesting.

            • jaymam 3.2.2.1.1.1
              21 November 2013 at 3:57 pm

              I’m sure there will be someone who will pay for the signs (again!).
              How could the rules stop Labour or someone else putting up pictures and the name of an opposition candidate? The picture would not be subject to copyright.

              • Lanthanide …
                21 November 2013 at 5:19 pm

                The Exclusive Brethren got into quite a bit of trouble with their election-related campaigning.

              • Colonial Viper …
                21 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

                I think you’re talking about third party signage for a candidate but not by a candidate. Innovative, but I have a feeling that this won’t be allowed.

                • jaymam …
                  21 November 2013 at 8:28 pm

                  The signs would of course be extremely positive and suggest that people vote for that candidate. How could any reasonable person object to that? You should know what I am capable of doing:
                  http://i43.tinypic.com/f3b3a0.jpg

                  • Lanthanide …
                    21 November 2013 at 8:55 pm

                    To suggest this wouldn’t fall foul of laws is laughable. Do you really think that:
                    1. Putting up signs with pictures of a candidate
                    2. With that candidates name on it
                    3. In the area of an electorate
                    4. During an election period

                    would not be seen as 3rd-party electioneering?

                    Sure, *maybe* if you put those signs up all of the rest of the time, in a wide geographic area, you might have a slim chance at getting away with it. But then everyone would wonder why all those pictures were up.

        • Melb 3.2.2.2
          21 November 2013 at 8:54 pm

          Signs that were illegal under electoral law.

          Though I suppose National could have retrospectively changed the laws after the election in order to make that all ok.

    • Salmon 3.3
      21 November 2013 at 11:57 am

      My analysis of the polling booths in Upper Harbour at the last election shows 20,000 National votes, and 7,000 Labour votes. Doesn’t look very winnable to me.

      But I am not familiar with the area, so could be missing something.

      • karol 3.3.1
        21 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

        Did you include the Massey & Massey North booths?

        • Salmon 3.3.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 12:33 pm

          Yes. I included:

          – Massey and Massey West from Te Atatu (maybe there should be more?).
          – Glenfield, Greenhithe, and Hobsonville from Helensville.
          – Glenfield and Sunnynook from East Coast Bays.

          • karol 3.3.1.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 12:57 pm

            What Booths are west of Don Buck Rd – currently under Waitakere, included in proposed Upper Harbour. Are they included in Massey West?

      • Richard29 3.3.2
        21 November 2013 at 9:52 pm

        Hey Salmon – you may be missing something looking just at the last election.
        I live in Bayview (the Glenfield bit of the Helensville electorate) it’s a fairly distinct community of around 8000 (as at the 2006 census).
        You can check out the demography of the area by doing a search on Stats NZ for quick stats on Glendhu and Witheford (the two halves of Bayview in Stats NZ areas). The demography is very representative of Auckland as a whole with a slight working class bias.
        Bayview is interesting electorally for a start it’s location has caused it to move between three different electorates in the last 4-5 elections (Northcote, East Coast Bays, Helensville) and now Upper Harbour.
        When I ran the two Bayview polling booths party votes back through a few elections the results are a microcosm of the country – 1999 – Lab/Alliance majority, 2002 collapse in National support (18%) spike in support for NZFirst and United Future, 2005 National largest party but Lab/Green/NZFirst holding a slim majority of party vote, 2008 National Landslide, 2011 National Landslide…
        I suspect a big part of the scale of Nat landslide and collapse of Labour support in 2008 and 2011 is that Bayview became part of Helensville so there is the issue of John Key’s personal popularity (which has always been higher than his party) rubbing off on the party vote. Plus Labour, rationally, probably didn’t waste a hell of a lot of effort and resource campaigning against the PM in his home electorate.
        Moving Bayview, Greenhithe and Hobsonville out of the PM’s electorate and into Upper Harbour might not cause a huge swing to the left but I would be surprised if we didn’t see a big drop off in National support to a more normal level. I wouldn’t be surprised to see party vote in neighbourhoods like Bayview swing Lab/Green with the rest of the country, even if the NH electorate as a whole goes blue.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.4
      21 November 2013 at 4:35 pm

      In return Labour could consider pulling out of the Waitakere Ranges area to enable the Greens to harvest higher party votes from the Blue-Greens up there in the forested hills.

      Proposed Electorates

      In the west, the Helensville electorate has been extended to incorporate part of Rodney and the western rural areas of Waitakere and New Lynn.

      It looks to me as if the Ranges would be going to Helensville. It will be a safe, very safe, National seat.

      I wouldn’t be surprised to find National trying to undo the protection that the Ranges got so as to open it up to more development.

      • karol 3.4.1
        21 November 2013 at 4:41 pm

        Ah, yes, that last part is worrying. It is odd how the proposal is to extend Helensvillle right out to Cornwallis and Huia.

        Nevertheless, there might be some mileage in Greens campaigning for the party vote (on the back of an electorate vote) in that area. Some may well be opposed to opening it up to development and wanting the bush and heritage areas preserved.

    • dave 3.5
      22 November 2013 at 6:08 am

      i totaly argree there we must maximis the vote . we do it with city vision we have two really good brands to push labour/greens we need to use them to maximum effect i just worry with labour haveing a really really strong leader now they will eat into the green vote ,

    • dave 3.6
      22 November 2013 at 6:27 am

      i dont think labour will hand over wellington centrel but there are seats curently held by national where a combined labour greens vote would remove the nact or this time the nacon thats where it make sense to make an accomadation but must remember this usefull only to stop the the crazy collin getting more mps its the party vote guys we must maximize

  4. vto 4
    21 November 2013 at 10:39 am

    I posted this on Open Mike about Nicky Wagner’s fears for her future given the abysmal way she and her National Party government have handled the earthquake recovery….

    “Nicky Wagner has admitted that the National Party has failed the east of Christchurch, which suffered by far the most and whose communities have been completely sacked and devastated by the earthquakes. Completely.

    In The Press this morning she says that if the new boundaries of Christchurch Central, which she won last time by 47 votes, moves anywhere but west (towards the Ilam and Fendalton nether regions) then the seat will be unwinnable for National.

    That is what she said (no link available yet).

    Why is that Nicky? Why will it become unwinnable? You have just had one of NZ’s biggest ever disasters which devastated huge chunks of your electorate. That is surely an opportunity for the sitting MP to work to help the constituents through the disaster. Such help would of course be recognised at the ballot box with a return to the seat by the incumbent, namely you Nicky. But you yourself admit, unthinkingly, that that is not going to happen to you.

    So why is it not going to happen to you? Why will it be impossible to win Nicky? Why? Surely, if you have helped these people then there is a chance at least you could win again? Yes?

    But you aint going to are you. Because you aint done shit for the people of the east of Christchurch. They are about to tell you that aren’t they Nicky.

    The people of the east and south of Christchurch are about to tell you to fuck right off because you aint done shit.”

    It seems the proposed changes will do Nicky Wagner no favours as the boundary expands to the south towards the port hills and not towards her rich mates in Ilam and Fendalton. South to the Port Hills is mostly labour country, with some aspirational wannabee types doing up dunger houses likely to vote to the right.

    Taking bets now on Chch Central reverting to Labour…

  5. MeToo 5
    21 November 2013 at 10:51 am

    Wow, I stay where I am. Again! Despite not changing address, for four elections in a row I changed seats -Waitakere, Waiparera, Rodney then Helensville. (I have a vague sense of once being in an electorate called West Auckland, too…)

    Gotta love living at the north-west popluation cross-roads.

    • Jilly Bee 5.1
      21 November 2013 at 12:22 pm

      I move from Waitakere to Te Atatu – just missed out on moving to Helensville (whew). Looking forward to helping Phil Twyford.

  6. Cemetery Jones 6
    21 November 2013 at 10:52 am

    Bennett is as much of a ‘westie’ as Bridges is a ‘Tauranga boy’. How do they say these things with straight faces?

  7. karol 7
    21 November 2013 at 10:55 am

    The proposed boundaries for the new electorate of Kelston is wider than we had surmised last night on Open Mike. It goes south of the great North Road into Glen Eden, as far as Glen Eden south. It also cuts through Sunnyvale and the edge of Oratia.

    This can be seen from the interactive map – enter proposed electorate name, and untick, Maori & current boundaries, etc.

    It also cuts through Avondale, includes the Avondale Racecourse, and LynnMall (and Cunliffe’s electorate office), follows the railway line to the West Coast Road up to Pleasant Road, almost to Atkinson Road.

  8. karol 8
    21 November 2013 at 11:07 am

    And there goes “Waitakere Man”. Who will replace him?

    Kelston Geezer? Kelston Guy?

    Whau Man?

  9. bad12 9
    21 November 2013 at 11:12 am

    Lolz i have to laugh at people discussing elections in terms of First Past the Post politics, the only electorate seat that really matters in the 2014 election is the one Colon Craig will stand in,

    Correction, that and the Tamaki-Makaurau Maori electorate, Labour could just about ensure it’self the Treasury Benches in November 2014 by campaigning in the Maori electorates it does not hold FOR the Mana Party and have the Mana Party campaign on behalf of Labour in those seats for the Party vote,

    Wont happen tho, 2 reasons political ego and Labour hasn’t worked out the niceties of MMP to the extent of being able to build a supporting partner to the extent that National have with the Conservatives…

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      21 November 2013 at 11:19 am

      I fear Labour is still playing 1970’s rugby. The game has moved on…a long way.

      • bad12 9.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 12:05 pm

        Yeah CV it does appear that way, i cringed when David Shearer as leader triumphantly announced after Labour’s retention of Ikaroa-Rawhiti that Labour would be taking back all the Maori electorates,

        It’s exactly that First Past the Post mentality which will lose Labour elections, it is obvious now that MMP chews up and spits out minor parties that form coalitions with the governing party and for the left to govern there must be an understanding struck between all the ‘factions’ of the left which involves ‘gifting’ of support so as to enhance the lefts chances of forming Governments,

        Anything else is simply gifting government to the ‘right’ as they are more than happy to legally ‘rig’ the election and their voters seem more than willing to blindly follow the parties dictates…

    • karol 9.2
      21 November 2013 at 11:25 am

      It does make a little difference for those of us in new/changed electorates, even though party votes don’t change.

    • Lanthanide 9.3
      21 November 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Tell that to Carmel Sepuloni.

  10. karol 10
    21 November 2013 at 11:23 am

    And Bennett shows her true allegiance by opting for Upper Harbour.

    PS: Maybe Ardern should go for Upper Harbour?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1
      21 November 2013 at 11:29 am

      Yes, suddenly the ‘Westie Girl’ has ‘once’ lived in Upper harbour- along with half a dozen other places.

      The woman has gone from carpet bagging to bag lady.

      Normally she would have chosen the new helensville, but there is already a ‘drive in candidate there ( for how long ?)

      • Tracey 10.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

        “Her father had a flooring business in Auckland, then in 1974 bought the village store at Kinloch, near Taupo. Bennett attended Taupo-nui-a-Tia College in Taupo. At 17 she gave birth to a daughter, Ana, and raised her alone.[3]

        Bennett moved to Auckland in 1992[4] where she worked in a rest home, first as a dishwasher and then as a nurse aide. She began studying social work at the Albany campus of Massey University in 1994.[3] She became the welfare officer of the Massey University at Albany Students’ Association, then, in 1996, the president, which gave her a taste for politics. She dropped the social work component to her course, leaving simply social policy,[3] graduating with a BA.” wikipedia

        it goes on

        “In November 2012, a week after unemployment was reported at 7.3 percent – a 13-year high – Bennett read out job listings in Parliament, claiming there were “300 jobs” available at retailer The Warehouse, if anyone wanted them, as well as 40 jobs at Bunnings. The Warehouse refuted this claim, saying it only had 30 jobs available, and Bunnings only had three advertised.[29]”

        Now she is part of a party that slams student unions, removed the training supplement she used to retrain and believes 13.50 an hour is enough to bring up a child… no wonder she dropped the social work component, she didnt want to see what policy actual does to people.

  11. bad12 11
    21 November 2013 at 11:55 am

    As a little aside and apologies for straying a little off topic, on the numbers,(not the published poll ones), you do realize that National are going to need Colon Craig, Banks, Dunne, and the Maori party to be able to form the next Government,

    That or Colon Craig and Winston Peters…

  12. jaymam 12
    21 November 2013 at 12:00 pm

    The southern boundary of Epsom electorate has shrunk slighly, so Epsom becomes slighly more right-wing (if that’s actually possible).

    • greywarbler 12.1
      21 November 2013 at 1:35 pm

      Now Epsom is fated to always fly in circles, clockwise?

      • greywarbler 12.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 5:23 pm

        No now I think of it it would be anti-clockwise. Which would be appropriate for anti- is their general direction in Epsom.

  13. ScottGN 13
    21 November 2013 at 12:05 pm

    The only change in the south is that Dunedin North more than doubles in size geographically pushing north towards Palmerston and Herbert into rural areas that you’d have to assume are likely to lean National.

  14. captain hook 14
    21 November 2013 at 12:28 pm

    what about the gerrymandering to give moses craig a seat in the parliament.
    this is turning into a dance of the rabble.

  15. Michael Nolan 15
    21 November 2013 at 12:41 pm

    The draft electorate boundaries released today are potentially career-ending for embattled Ohariu MP Peter Dunne.

    The proposals, as highlighted by 3News show Dunne’s electorate of Ohariu gaining Wadestown from Wellington Central, and losing Kororo, Maungakari and Normandale to other electorates.
    By analysing the votes cast in ballot boxes in these communities we can gain insight into the implications these changes will make on Dunne’s ability to retain the electorate next election.

    Wadestown is the only community Ohariu gains by the changes. Combining the candidate votes cast for the Labour and Greens candidates in 2011 (764), then the votes cast for the National candidate with the party vote for United Future* (615), we can see a net gain of 149 votes for the Left that Wadestown brings to the electorate.

    Using the same technique for the communities that are cut out of the electorate, we see further swing to the left. Kororo (248 for Left candidates, 313 for Right)**, Maungakari (653 Left, 977 Right) and Normandale (301 Left, 437 Right) leave for other electorates taking a net 525 vote advantage for the Right with them. By combining the loss of net 525 votes for the Right with the gain of net 149 votes for the Left, we see 649 votes wiped from Right’s tally’s at the last election.

    The significance here lies in the narrow majority with which Peter Dunne won Ohariu in 2011. A swing of 649 votes to the Left will have a big impact on the narrow majority of 1392 that got him over the line two years ago. Combine these changes with the string of controversies that have plagued him this term, and it is hard to see the Mr Sensible crossing the line next year.

    *The UF party vote is added on this occasion as it is a reasonable assumption that a rational voter whom voted UF in Wellington Central would have cast their candidate vote for the UF leader had they resided in the Ohariu electorate.
    ** Left: Labour & Greens, Right: National, UF

    Michael Nolan
    Rangitata LEC
    Timaru Branch
    NZ Labour Party

    • Tracey 15.1
      21 November 2013 at 12:51 pm

      who is standing for Labour there, with Charles gone? Darren hughes?

      • Michael Nolan 15.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 1:03 pm

        Charles is gone and I would be surprised if he gave up a rewarding UN job to return to NZPOL. However, with the new Labour leadership and the prospect of being the one to drive the final nail into the UF coffin and, with it possibly change the Government, it’s not an impossibility. Make the phone call DC!

      • lprent 15.1.2
        21 November 2013 at 1:04 pm

        He was in the UK last time I looked.

      • risildowgtn 15.1.3
        21 November 2013 at 1:12 pm

        Darren Hughes is working in the UK for the Electoral Reform Siciety

        He relocated to the UK in April 2012

    • bad12 15.2
      21 November 2013 at 3:27 pm

      Micheal Nolan, an excellent analysis of the Ohariu electorate and the ‘Hairdo’ Peter Dunne’s chances of being re-elected there,

      Hopefully anyone involved in the silent movement to unseat Dunne here in Wellington takes note of the boundary changes and alters any planned leaflet drops to take into account the new suburbs included,

      The thought of that waste of space getting the kick from the Parliament has given me cause to slap a smile on my dial for the remainder of the day…

  16. Papa Tuanuku 16
    21 November 2013 at 3:06 pm

    I wish people would call it for what is is. ‘Appointing’ electorates to an unelected party (conservatives) is undemocratic and manipulation of the people. There’s also a race and gender thing going on – can you imagine an unelected Maori woman having the same sense of entitlement, and being supported by the WSCP media? (WSCP is a bell hooks term, i.e. white supremist capitalist patriarchy, a way better term than MSM).

  17. gobsmacked 17
    21 November 2013 at 4:14 pm

    OK, so a quick compare-and-contrast between Epsom and East Coast Bays (assuming that’s now the Conservative target) …

    ACT have stood candidates in Epsom since MMP began. In 1999, Rodney Hide had his first go, and by 2002, he was winning 22% of the vote (candidate, not party). So that was the base for the 2005 challenge.

    Epsom had a sitting National MP (Richard Worth). He did not stand aside for Hide in 2005. The Nats HQ effectively cut him adrift, but – and this is important – he was still campaigning. He wanted to keep his seat, even if his party was happy for him to lose.

    Hide won in 2008, with 42% (candidate). Then, as the sitting MP, he built his vote to 56% in 2011. Then – as we all know – he got knifed by Brash, and ACT lost support, but Banks held on (down to 44%).

    So Hide fought two elections in Epsom, against National, before winning it at the 3rd attempt. National did NOT – and probably could not – simply “gift” their seat to another party. ACT had to do the groundwork first, to make the challenge credible to the voters. Hide was not a parachute candidate.

    Moreover, even when ACT fell apart, Epsom National voters were asked to support a National ex-MP, ex-Minister, a Nat in all but name, John Banks. He supported Key 100% (and vice versa).

    So that’s Epsom. Whereas in East Coast Bays the Conservative candidate got 5% in 2011.

    Contra Paddy Gower & co, electorates aren’t just “gifted”. They require a lot of hard work. Hide did it, whereas Craig is just waiting for a freebie.

    Yes, it might happen. But it isn’t guaranteed, at all.

    • karol 17.1
      21 November 2013 at 4:24 pm

      I actually wonder if Craig will revert to standing in a Rodney seat. That is where he has been building a certain amount of support.

    • Nick K 17.2
      22 November 2013 at 4:15 am

      Thank you gob smacked for this. I keep trying to explain this to people but it seems to go nowhere. Act had to work so bloody hard to gain Epsom and I just can’t see the Cons being able to replicate that and I can’t see the Nats giving them a seat. Some realism is required. Cheers.

  18. ScottGN 18
    21 November 2013 at 5:07 pm

    Anyone have an idea how the proposed changes to Hamilton West might work out? Tim MacIndoe has a majority of 4,418 over Sue Moroney and the changes look to be losing western rural areas and contracting the seat back towards Hamilton City.

    • Disraeli Gladstone 18.1
      21 November 2013 at 10:32 pm

      Not good, I’m afraid.

      Hamilton West now crosses the river to include wealthy areas in the north. So even with the rural areas disappearing, Hamilton West becomes a more wealthy and bluer seat.

      If anything, Hamilton East is now more marginal than Hamilton West, which is a reverse of the general trend. I wonder if Moroney would be tempted to hop over the river. It’s a shame, really. Both Bennett and MacIndoe are pretty ghastly MPs.

    • Francis 18.2
      21 November 2013 at 11:04 pm

      The polling stations in the area lost showed a very strong majority towards the National MP (as you can expect in most rural areas). The area added to the north is rural, though the area added is less than that removed. I couldn’t find much data for the two areas added from Hamilton East, though I’d say they’re National-leaning (not as much as the rural seats though). The boundary lines through there seem to be quite abrupt, so it’s possible the final boundaries might be a bit different.

      I’d say that she has a slightly better chance now, though her increased profile in the Labour party and the inevitable drop in National votes (along with a good campaign, which will hopefully occur in all electorates) will hopefully see her pick up the seat.

      Then again, I’m not a local, so I can only go by the numbers…

  19. gobsmacked 19
    21 November 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Colin Craig on Radio Live now … worship at his altar, all ye Righties!

    • gobsmacked 19.1
      21 November 2013 at 5:26 pm

      And Craig is quite explicit – no “cup of tea”, no standing against a Nat.

      He wants National to stand aside and give him a free run.

      This is all good for the left … it makes the National-Craig link explicit. You vote for a Nat-Con (sic), not a Key mask.

      • chris73 19.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 6:36 pm

        A vote for Craig is a vote for a third term for National or the alternative is Norman as deputy leader

        • gobsmacked 19.1.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 7:26 pm

          If you think cuddling up to Craig is a net gain for National, I have no wish to disillusion you. Please, please link them in the public mind as much as you possibly can.

          And yes, the crucial word is net … you work it out.

          Might want to talk to some Auckland Nats before making Colin your kingmaker. Women vote these days, apparently.

          • chris73 19.1.1.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 7:44 pm

            Craig only needs a seat of 4% of the vote to make a difference and religious fundies vote, winstonfirsts got the elderly covered so maybe craigs got the fundies…

          • Lanthanide 19.1.1.1.2
            21 November 2013 at 8:58 pm

            Actually gob I think Colin getting a set could be a net gain for National. He got 3.4% at the last election, there’s every chance he’ll get higher this time. His votes will largely be coming from the right. So if they don’t reach the 5% threshold and don’t get an electorate, then that vote will be wasted, hurting National.

        • Naturesong 19.1.1.2
          21 November 2013 at 8:27 pm

          If the green party gained enough party votes to be able to demand a green deputy PM, why do you think the Green party would choose Russel Norman?

  20. Fisiani 20
    21 November 2013 at 11:01 pm

    Oh Dear Losing Wadestown from Wellington Central means that Labour will probably come third in Wellington Central yet again. Grant ( I polished up the handles so carefully) Robertson is totally useless.

    • Francis 20.1
      22 November 2013 at 10:38 am

      Grant Robertson has a pretty decent majority in the electorate (of over 6000). A loss of around 100 of that majority isn’t going to make a huge difference. However, the combined loss of a huge chunk of fairly strong right-leaning areas, and the gain of a left-leaning are could make the difference for Peter Dunne…

  21. Brian 21
    22 November 2013 at 2:01 am

    Here we go – haven’t seen this since about 72 – (that’s the year – not the overwhelming amount of seats national lose by next year)