Key’s female trouble

Written By: - Date published: 10:03 pm, June 16th, 2009 - 51 comments
Categories: john key, national/act government, same old national - Tags:

Key is obviously lying about having an unavoidable commitment in Taupo keeping him from Melissa Lee’s election night do. He would tell us what it was if it were true.

He would have told journos at the start that he wouldn’t be there if there really had been some long-standing commitment. Truth is he abandoned Lee to prevent the stink of her failure attaching to him.

My feeling is that his abandonment of Lee, contrasting with his shielding of Worth, with hurt National’s already fragile female support.

More importantly, his cuts to education in the Budget and refusal to acknowledge the public out-cry as he moves to turn over local government in Auckland to big business shows he has a tin-ear for issues that traditionally matter to female voters.

For National to win elections it needs to take women’s votes away from Labour. Yet they’re governing like an old boys’ club, which exactly why most women traditionally haven’t voted for them. That’s dumb. It’ll drive away women and that will lose them the 2011 election.

51 comments on “Key’s female trouble ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rodel 1
    16 June 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Look! It’s not just female trouble. Watch Key hang Hide out to dry when fringe ‘Aucklanders’ realise they’re being duped and the Nats feel the votes slipping away.
    Look! With only 900 voting for Act last Saturday perhaps its begun already.
    It will be interesting to see what Crosby- Textor’s ‘getting rid of Hide’ strategic plan will be and whether Key & co. can implement it
    Keep looking!.

    • Rodel 1.1
      18 June 2009 at 9:44 pm

      Not really a reply but I can almost see the beginnings of the chink in the Rodney and John Show.
      Rodney-
      ” it’s not core business- rubbish, roads and water”
      John
      “Well, Look, It might be important to have a party place on the Actland harbour front for the rugby people.”
      Rodney-
      “but Its not Core Council business “(according to Hide)
      John,-
      ” Look-He’s lost the confidence of the prime minister.”
      Rodney- your call

      Watch- no (Look at)- this space

  2. Killinginthenameof 2
    16 June 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Exactly Zetetic, there is only so many breast cancer drugs that they can hand out as bribes.

  3. mickysavage 3
    16 June 2009 at 10:32 pm

    This has been a fascinating month where we have gone from the glow of honeymoon to the reality of what happens when you actually start making hard decisions.

    The nats have started ruling in the only way they know how, cut budgets and slash social support. Labour lite is only a dim memory.

    I agree that their performance in Mt Albert was terrible. They left Melissa out to dry. They did not have the decency to support her or even back her up when things went sour. The least they could do is be there on election night. Phil Goff would have been there no matter what.

    Key needs to answer 3 questions:

    1. Why did he fire Worth?
    2. What was his unavoidable commitment?
    3. Why did he agree to it when the byelection date was set 6 plus weeks ago?

  4. gingercrush 4
    16 June 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Oh please. You lot on the left believe anything Key does will lose him the 2011 election. For National to lose the 2011 election, Labour need to win it. What exactly has Labour done since the 2008 that is so enchanting to voters?

    Of course its useless looking at gender since there is very little polling data on gender and votes. Though, surely if National has a problem with female voters then Labour have a problem with getting males to vote for them?

    For Labour to win the 2011 election they need to win Auckland again and more importantly they need the South and West of Auckland to get out and vote. They need an increase of votes in provincial New Zealand and get big city voters to vote for them again. Whilst, at the same time not cannibalise the Green vote.

    • r0b 4.1
      16 June 2009 at 11:20 pm

      Of course its useless looking at gender since there is very little polling data on gender and votes

      Don’t be dim GC, plenty of polls have break down by gender and other factors if you look past the headlines. Sometimes they even get headlines:

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10333265

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      17 June 2009 at 12:07 am

      For National to lose the 2011 election, Labour need to win it.

      Actually, most elections in NZ aren’t about parties winning an election but by incumbent governments losing one. Nationals already lost the next election by showing it’s true colours – dictatorial and caring only for the rich.

      For Labour to win the 2011 election they need to win Auckland again…

      Yeah, I don’t that will be a problem courtesy of the SuperShity that one one but Rodney hide wants.

      • gingercrush 4.2.1
        17 June 2009 at 12:19 am

        You were saying that shit before the 2008 election.

        • Zaphod Beeblebrox 4.2.1.1
          17 June 2009 at 10:31 am

          True, Labour does have a lot of work to do to win back voters but they now have an excellent template in Mt Albert.

    • Ms X 4.3
      17 June 2009 at 7:32 am

      It was my undertstanding that you dont win elections – the government lose it. Or that was true when it was Labour’s to lose.

  5. felix 5
    16 June 2009 at 11:05 pm

    “What exactly has Labour done since the 2008 that is so enchanting to voters?”

    I don’t know ginge, why don’t you ask around in Mt Albert?

    • gingercrush 5.1
      16 June 2009 at 11:23 pm

      Mt. Albert isn’t your typical New Zealand electorate. Its very strong forLabour as the 2008 party vote shows. Also since when did by-elections resemble National politics? And as much as National MPs likely disgust you, there aren’t 65 or more Melissa Lee clones out there. Though if we’re going to talk Mt. Albert. You were aware that whereas there was a huge gap between Shearer and Lee the party vote was remarkably better for National and indeed better than what National got in 2008. http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/lee-s-blunders-hurt-national-in-mt-albert-2771638

      • poptart 5.1.1
        16 June 2009 at 11:36 pm

        Are you trying to say the Mt Albert by-election included a party vote? Your writing style is confusing.

        • gingercrush 5.1.1.1
          16 June 2009 at 11:41 pm

          My writing style is largely illiterate. Basically I can’t write grammatical or punctually correct English. I am saying that since the TV3 and TVNZ polls were largely credible and showed that Lee was clearly going to do crap and Shearer would do overwhelmingly well. Yet despite that, National’s party vote in the TVNZ poll held up very well and was actually better than at the election.

          • felix 5.1.1.1.1
            16 June 2009 at 11:45 pm

            It’s not your writing ginge, it’s your incredibly low-functioning brain.

            Why would you say “party vote” when you mean “tv poll”?

      • felix 5.1.2
        16 June 2009 at 11:38 pm

        What party vote? It was a by-election you dumbass.

        You’re right about one thing though ginge, it’s not quite a typical electorate – it’s richer, more professional, and less maori than the country as a whole.

      • Zetetic 5.1.3
        16 June 2009 at 11:39 pm

        Labour’s early polling showed the parties level, that was when National was at its zenith. By the end, on the back of Waterview, supercity and some spill over from Lee, the public polls were showing Labour with a big lead over National. It’s all downhill from here for the Tories.

        • gingercrush 5.1.3.1
          16 June 2009 at 11:48 pm

          …..

          The TVNZ poll showed that in terms of which party they liked National held up considerably well in an already strong-Labour party vote and where polling suggested Lee would do horribly.

          • Zetetic 5.1.3.1.1
            17 June 2009 at 12:06 am

            but it had fallen from the start when National’s popularity was at its height. What don’t you get about that?

          • gingercrush 5.1.3.1.2
            17 June 2009 at 12:15 am

            It was still 2% stronger than what National got at the 2008 election.

      • lprent 5.1.4
        17 June 2009 at 1:24 am

        There is a reason for that. We knew that we could hold the seat and others close to us may not have. So we diverted canvassing effort to other electorates to help keep up the party vote. It isn’t something that you can rely on us doing next election. Or for that matter in a by-election. It was interesting that the right vote didn’t turn out in 2009. What could the Nats have done to piss off so many of their own voters?

  6. Zetetic 6
    16 June 2009 at 11:20 pm

    ginge.

    They’ve said it should be their choice if they want a super-city or now.

    They’ve said they don’t support knocking down neighbourhoods for motorways.

    They’ve said education shouldn’t be cut, that we need proper spending on jobs and training to get us through the recession.

    They’ve said we shouldn’t be wasting money on tax cuts for the rich, who don’t even spend it.

    Remember, all Labour has to do to win is get back 3-4% that they lost to National. It’s not about getting everyone. It’s about getting back people who voted for them in 1999, 2002, and 2005. If they can get roughly equal with the Tories around 40%, Labour wins.

    • gingercrush 6.1
      16 June 2009 at 11:34 pm

      They’ve said it should be their choice if they want a super-city or now.

      That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll switch their vote to Labour.

      They’ve said they don’t support knocking down neighbourhoods for motorways.

      Do you really think Waterview is a National issue?

      They’ve said education shouldn’t be cut, that we need proper spending on jobs and training to get us through the recession.

      Once again that doesn’t necessarily translate to votes.

      They’ve said we shouldn’t be wasting money on tax cuts for the rich, who don’t even spend it.

      See above.

      Remember, all Labour has to do to win is get back 3-4% that they lost to National. It’s not about getting everyone. It’s about getting back people who voted for them in 1999, 2002, and 2005. If they can get roughly equal with the Tories around 40%, Labour wins.

      …..

      1999 – Had three other parties besides National and Labour that reached 5%.
      2002- National vote went everywhere but to National. Featured 4 other parties that reached 5%.
      2005- NZFirst. An incredible close result between National and Labour and remember the National party of 2005 was DECISIVELY RIGHT-WING.

      All three elections had the HELEN FACTOR

      I don’t think the left realise how important Helen Clark was not only for female voters but for Labour voters in general. Yes 5% will have the potential to change the government of 2011. I don’t think Labour will get there.

      Also 2005 had a very strong turnout and that turnout was largely because South and West Auckland went out and vote. Perhaps that can happen again. But those people are never easy to get out and vote.

      • Zetetic 6.1.1
        16 June 2009 at 11:37 pm

        We’ll see. With Key driving women away, I reckon they will.

        this captcha thing is on fire tonight – previous one was ’24 Bully’ and this one is ‘tense RECOGNITION’

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2
        17 June 2009 at 12:13 am

        Do you really think Waterview is a National issue?

        Yes, actually I do. It had been settled, the people had told the government what they wanted that was best for them and Auckland as a whole and the government was going to do it. Then NACT comes along and reverses that decision dictatorially and that will be noted throughout the country.

        • gingercrush 6.1.2.1
          17 June 2009 at 12:18 am

          One shall positively see Labour leading the polls when they are next released then. Good luck.

        • Jared 6.1.2.2
          17 June 2009 at 12:44 am

          A small minority in the Auckland isthmus decided they wanted minimal impact from an important transport corridor in the Prime Ministers electorate and so campaign for the least impact/most expensive option.
          What will be noted is Labour’s attempt at bankrupting the country over appeasing a select few in the Auckland region.

          • Jared 6.1.2.2.1
            17 June 2009 at 1:02 am

            So completing the ring route isn’t important? You should probably contact Transit New Zealand then, I don’t think they realise yet. They seem to think its the vital last link in the western ring route. Actually, they even think it will give us some moneys
            “An economic assessment shows that this improved reliability and accessibility will contribute more than one billion dollars to the Auckland economy”.
            I couldn’t really care less whether or not Mt Albert or Mt Roskill citizens want the motorway there, if we decided infrastructure purely on the opinions of those in the local neighbourhood we would still be stuck in the 30’s.

            [lprent: I’ll let this through. It is actually an answer to a comment I made before I discovered Jared presuming to be a moderator (and I removed my comment). Sometimes my two roles here catch me out.
            Suffice it to say that the waterview connection is a low priority on anyones economic agenda in terms of benefit/cost which is why the funds will be coming from unusual sources and overriding other more worthy projects. It has no economic benefit for the areas it traverses which is why there are no ramps. I think that it should be fully tolled so those using it should pay for it as it is impossible to say that there are benefits to the locals (regardless of what Melissa thought).
            See you in a week.]

    • Jared 6.2
      17 June 2009 at 12:40 am

      Labour’s line has always been that they wanted a supercity, they initiated the Royal Commission and have hardly criticised the report. If Mt Albert votes were deciding on whether they want a supercity or not then a vote for David Shearer wasn’t much of a difference than voting for Melissa Lee or any of the other candidates.

      The motorway decision is a lose lose topic regardless. The government shouldn’t have to buy the support of a suburb in deciding whether or not a motorway should be put in that benefits a city as a whole. Typical NIMBY behaviour, and I can’t blame them, but Labour could not have afforded the tunnel option, nor was it economically feasible. Infact, a vote for Labour/Shearer in that respect was a vote for extortionate overspending on an option for less than 40,000 citizens. That, is progressive thinking.

      Voting David Shearer in is a vote for him as a candidate and what he represents, not necessarily their parties lines. Hence why a vote for him wasn’t a vote for or against education or tax cut, nor should you insinuate that.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.2.1
        17 June 2009 at 10:43 am

        The supercity could be a vote winner for National if they approached it more carefully and slowed it down. As it is, it is a looming disaster for them because the Nats have shown disinterest and Hide does not understand how it works and how local govt so ingrained into virtually every sporting, educational and social group that we have.

        The Queens wharf purchase a week after Rodney’s cabinet paper suggesting Local Government get out of non core activities shows how confused they are.

  7. felix 7
    17 June 2009 at 12:03 am

    Ginger your analysis is brilliant – for a mollusk.

    I only managed to claw myself halfway through your turgid comment above, but essentially you seem to be saying that in spite of the voters of Auckland hating everything the government’s doing, theyr’e going to vote them back in anyway because….

    That’s when I remembered that you’re an irrelevant cockhole and I’ve got better things to do with my night than suffer your unpleasant discharges.

    So fuck yourself and goodnight.

    [lprent: Amusing as this conversation has been to read for a certain level of bad taste, I’d suggest that both of you should wind up in a better humour on a new day. ]

    • Zetetic 7.1
      17 June 2009 at 12:08 am

      I’m meant to be the mean one Felix. Don’t you squeeze me out of a job.

    • Jared 7.2
      17 June 2009 at 12:41 am

      What a pathetic response. If you can’t be civil and respectful of other posters don’t post at all.

      [lprent: The moderators are the only ones who can make that call. We are protective of our site from pretenders to the role. You have a 1 week ban for presuming to be a moderator. Read the policy to understand your infraction. ]

  8. gingercrush 8
    17 June 2009 at 12:21 am

    Please provide evidence of voters in Auckland HATING EVERYTHING the government is doing. I’d really like to see that.

    You are a pompous git Felix. For me being such a cockhole, dumbass and all the rest you like to call me you spend an awful large amount of time responding to me. So go back to your bottle you alcoholic piece of shit.

    [lprent: Amusing as this conversation has been to read for a certain level of bad taste, I’d suggest that both of you should wind up in a better humour on a new day. ]

  9. Anita 9
    17 June 2009 at 6:35 am

    Zetetic writes,

    More importantly, his cuts to education in the Budget and refusal to acknowledge the public out-cry as he moves to turn over local government in Auckland to big business shows he has a tin-ear for issues that traditionally matter to female voters.

    Are you sure the local government in Auckland issue is more damaging for female voters than male? It doesn’t feel like a strongly gendered issue to me.

    Incidentally The Hollow Men has a chapter on National trying to win the female vote, which includes their own analysis of the issues that get in the way of women voting National.

    • Rochelle Rees 9.1
      17 June 2009 at 8:58 am

      That’s right. The directions to their female candidates to try and get cutsie articles in the womens mags!

    • Zetetic 9.2
      17 June 2009 at 9:17 am

      I would think that issues of community and some of the services that local government produces tend to be seen as more important to women than men.

      I may be wrong (that’s a rare admission) but I recall being told that women heavily out-number men in voting in local elections.

  10. serpico 10
    17 June 2009 at 7:11 am

    [lprent: Banned 1 month.
    1. It is a a classic troll line without any basis in fact.
    2. Helen and Peter are friends.
    3. You can jerk off on Wishart and his lines elsewhere. This is a place for adults and almost adults.
    ]

  11. charlie 11
    17 June 2009 at 9:24 am

    gingercrush said

    # gingercrush (103) Vote: Add rating 12 Subtract rating 1 Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    I officially give this woman no credibility whatsoever. I hope she and Goff are fucked. There is no way I am going to trust a bitch that knows her husband is committing fraud and then is supposedly sexually harassed. Yeah right. What a bitch.

  12. So Bored 12
    17 June 2009 at 10:10 am

    Lot of banning and warning today, I feel the chill winds blowing. Time to be awake and serious.

    Governing like an “old boys club” you reckon alienates women does it Zetetic?…..I keep noticing that rich old boys clubs have attendant concubines who drive their children to school in the latest Queens Street tractor prior to the high price fashion shops and lunch with the other rich mens trophy girlies at some high end restaurant. Then to the private trainer at the gym. Then collect the kids from private school and off to after school high cost activities, and back to the Reemers mansion. How do we get these women to vote with the left? They “aspire” to be better looked after than the rest of us, and vote that way.

    Time to make the term “politics of aspiration” understood properly by the masses of other women out there. I could define the Nacts view of aspiration as “I want more than you, and I dont care if I rub your nose in broken glass to make sure I get it because I and my children deserve it more than you and yours”.

  13. DougL 13
    17 June 2009 at 11:48 am

    They are making all the right moves to surrender any increase in the female vote they gained in 2008.

    What is it with National and pay and employment equity? When they took office in 1990 they abolished the Employment Equity Act. Now they have axed the Dept of Labour’s Pay & Employment Equity (PaEE) Unit. You can still find them on the website though at http://www.dol.govt.nz/services/PayAndEmploymentEquity/index.asp

    They have also axed two investigations aimed at improving the pay of women. The investigations were aimed at female social workers at Child, Youth and Family, who are paid 9.5 per cent less than their male colleagues, and at inequities in the pay of mainly female school support workers.

    But it is not just about pay rates. It is also about participation, fairness and respect in the workplace. Many employment practices impact on the ability of women to fully participate in the workplace. The bipartite work being done by employers and unions supported by the PaEE Unit was identifying and addressing these issues. Benefits for workers and employers were being achieved.

Links to post