Polity: The ENV debate: Some more data

14 comments on “Polity: The ENV debate: Some more data ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Enough is Enough 1

   11 July 2014 at 11:01 am

   My fear is that in 2011 the public had an issue that defined both parties and was extremely divisive. That being asset sales.

   A huge majority of the public (according to opinion polls, that I concede most people don’t actually accept as being accurate) were opposed to National’s policy to sell our assets. That was the defining issue in the election. Everyone knew that they had to turn out and vote Greens/Labour to stop the assets being sold.

   And notwithstanding that issue, people stayed at home therefore allowing National to sell everything.

   If they stayed home in 2011 when our assets were on the line, what is going to get them out of bed on wet September morning in 2014?
   • Lanthanide 1.1

     11 July 2014 at 11:35 am

     And notwithstanding that issue, people stayed at home therefore allowing National to sell everything.

     If they stayed home in 2011 when our assets were on the line, what is going to get them out of bed on wet September morning in 2014?

     They stayed home because Labour didn’t present themselves as a credible government, and by-and-large the public were still in love with National.

     Also National won the 2011 election because of the right-ward swing in Christchurch as a result of the earthquakes. National would not have gotten 61 votes in favour of asset sales if that hadn’t happened (they still may have formed the government, eg with MP or NZFirst, but they oppose asset sales).

     So the key differences this time:
     1. CHCH is by and large fucked off with National.
     2. The public by and large are realising National are liars and only in it for their rich mates.
     3. Labour is more organised. Still not roaring on all cylinders or where I’d like them to be, but ahead of where they were in 2011.
     • Enough is Enough 1.1.1

       11 July 2014 at 12:03 pm

       I agree with you on point 1 (albeit from sitting in the North Island),

       However re point 2 & 3 I can’t really see National being seen in any worse light than they were in 2011, and as for Labour being more organised I am far from convinced.

       In 2011 Labour had a central message that resonated with the public. In 2014 there has been nothing more than a series of underwhelming and often bungled policy releases from an unpopular leader who spends most of his time defending himself.

       Compare that with the Greens coherent consistent message.

       I am not saying its too late and praying it is not. But Labour is in desperate need of central plank to their election campaign that stay at home voters will connect with and motivate them to vote.
       • swordfish 1.1.1.1

         11 July 2014 at 2:23 pm

         In 2011 Labour had a central message that resonated with the public

         If they stayed home in 2011 when our assets were on the line, what is going to get them out of bed on wet September morning in 2014

         I think it’s important to understand that, although a significant majority of New Zealanders opposed asset sales (including over 40% of National supporters), quite a large minority of those opposing were – according to polls – mildly, rather than strongly against.

         More than one poll measured the degree or strength of opposition, but (after a very brief search) I can only find one at the moment. The Herald-DigiPoll of July 2011 found 35% strongly against asset sales and another 22% moderately against. A mere 27% favoured asset sales (either strongly or moderately) and the remainder were either undecided or had no opinion. So, the thing is, although opposition massively outnumbered support, far less than half the population felt strongly about the issue. Certainly not strongly enough to change their vote. As much as I wish it were otherwise, it wasn’t quite the (potentially) decisive, game-changing issue you suggest.

         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10741727
         • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.1.1

           11 July 2014 at 3:04 pm

           The election result quite clearly demonstrates its was not the decisive issue. That is kind of my point.

           In 2011 New Zealand was in a slump with next to no growth. Unemployment was very high. National was proposing very unpopular policy. There were political scandals (pansy Wong) showing how corrupt the government was.

           This was the kind of backdrop that would ordinarily see a government booted out, or at the very least loose support. The exact opposite occurred.

           The background is more favourable for National now (even though it is due to events they can not take credit for Chch) and Labour is floundering more than they ever have.
2. red blooded 2

   11 July 2014 at 12:29 pm

   I have to admit that I agree.

   ChCh voters were desperate for stability in 2011, and there wasn’t any real contest of ideas about how to handle the ongoing earthquakes and recovery plans, anyway. Many who are frustrated and despondent now still believed then that EQC and CERA would come through for them, over time. The CCC elections showed a swing away from this state of mind. I’m not entirely convinced by the “board of locals” approach that I heard a brief announcement about this morning, but I do know that there’s been a lot of simmering discontent about others imposing their priorities while Cantabrians have been locked out of democratic representation (even prior to the earthquakes, the Nat government’s moves against the regional council were deeply unpopular).

   Having said that, I’m waiting for a coherent, defining message about what it means to vote Labour this time. Education, equity and family, perhaps? The messages need to be more connected and the spokespeople need to be better briefed and more articulate. (Side point – I was very impressed by the leader of Young Labour on Back Benchers last night – as I was last year. She’s a savvy, committed young woman and a good communicator.)

   And the general public’s view of Nat? Despite all the ministerial bungling and gaffes, they are still seen as competent and united behind Team Key. I haven’t really heard a message from them – just “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.” Even the inaccurate claims aren’t challenged – e.g. “out of the red and back into the black” implies Labour ran deficits. If they keep saying it often enough, it starts to become the accepted wisdom…

   I’m not a defeatist, but I’m not as relentless upbeat as some on this site. What’s the core message? How can it be communicated simply, and adapted to fit different circumstances and strands of discussion? Labour is releasing plenty of policy, but it needs to be meshed together better.
   • Enough is Enough 2.1

     11 July 2014 at 2:05 pm

     I agree entirely. I hope I am wrong but the attitude I get from many commentators is “she’ll be right, Labour is in good shape, a million odd people who don’t vote, will vote for us this time and the left will win”.

     Although I admire the confidence and relaxed attitude of many around here, I personally am shitting myself that we are sleepwalking to another humiliating defeat.
   • Enough is Enough 2.2

     11 July 2014 at 2:05 pm

     I agree entirely. I hope I am wrong but the attitude I get from many commentators is “she’ll be right, Labour is in good shape, a million odd people who don’t vote, will vote for us this time and the left will win”.

     Although I admire the confidence and relaxed attitude of many around here, I personally am shitting myself that we are sleepwalking to another humiliating defeat.
3. swordfish 3

   11 July 2014 at 2:34 pm

   Nice, succinct analysis by Rob.

   But also see Puddleglum’s more detailed and comprehensive demolition of the official National Party position on 2011 non-voters…http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/nationals-problem-more-glass-ceiling-than-complacency/
4. swordfish 4

   11 July 2014 at 2:34 pm

   Nice, succinct analysis by Rob.

   But also see Puddleglum’s more detailed and comprehensive demolition of the official National Party position on 2011 non-voters…http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/nationals-problem-more-glass-ceiling-than-complacency/
5. swordfish 5

   11 July 2014 at 2:34 pm

   Nice, succinct analysis by Rob.

   But also see Puddleglum’s more detailed and comprehensive demolition of the official National Party position on 2011 non-voters…http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/nationals-problem-more-glass-ceiling-than-complacency/
6. swordfish 6

   11 July 2014 at 2:34 pm

   Nice, succinct analysis by Rob.

   But also see Puddleglum’s more detailed and comprehensive demolition of the official National Party position on 2011 non-voters…http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/nationals-problem-more-glass-ceiling-than-complacency/
7. swordfish 7

   11 July 2014 at 2:37 pm

   I liked my comment so much that I repeated the fucker 4 times !!!

   I might do the same for this one, too.
   • Enough is Enough 7.1

     11 July 2014 at 2:46 pm

     The Standard machine must have liked yours better than mine. My comment was only regurgitated twice…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS