VUW Post-election Conference

Written By: - Date published: 9:37 pm, February 16th, 2012 - 9 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

I attended the VUW post-election conference in Legislative Chamber today, held under Chatham House rules. Usual mix of insight tinged with the odd bit of bullshit – the best contribution by far IMHO came from Colin James.  Election conference 12Feb16

James argues that 2011 was a status-quo election for National, the party that has won two-thirds of the time over the last century. I’m not as determinist; but determination to win was a key factor in our success in three elections from 1999. I think perceived absence of this determination was a reason why many Labour electorate voters placed their  their party vote elsewhere, a feature that James analyses in some depth.

I agree with James’ analysis that Labour’s buying into the fiscal responsibility frame cost it dearly; it is a mistake that the British Labour party also seems to want to make. It is true that Labour governments will always have to be fiscally responsible, and Michael Cullen certainly was, but it does not have to be me-too.

James is also right about Labour’s negative frame, a point made in 2008  by Steven Joyce and again with justification this time. While Labour never changed its “No asset sales” line, National’s “mixed ownership” message refined through focus group testing went unchallenged. It’s running out of steam now and ripe for a broad-based campaign, hopefully better targeted.

All through the 2008-2011 Labour had chanted “National has no plan”.  National countered this criticism with its  6-point plan,  publicised far and wide. And in the campaign James points out;

promises were modest but couched in such a way as to make the government look very busy: a 120-point action plan, mostly of things already in train, was published shortly before election day.

Labour’s 6-point plan for  jobs and growth came late in the campaign.  James’ critique is the first I’ve seen of National’s 120-point rehash.

However the real point of post-election evaluation is to learn the lessons and prepare the ground for the next election. In James’ view the 2011 election is transitional, and I agree; that is perhaps why it has not been seen as exciting as some others.

James looks at three key transitions; cultural, environmental, and generational – Maori politics, Green politics, and post baby-boom politics. All are crucial, and in all cases Labour is well-placed if it is smart enough and strategic enough.

As for National, their strategy is based on being able to produce results by 2014, much like Cameron in the UK. Politically, now that they have cannibalised the right, their paradoxical hope lies in Winston. If he stays in Parliament, stays on the cross-benches, and supports the party with a plurality, assuming that is National. A lot of ifs.

Food for thought indeed.

 

9 comments on “VUW Post-election Conference ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    16 February 2012 at 11:02 pm

    VUW stands for Victoria University of Wellington for anyone else who had no idea what this was about.

  2. swordfish 2
    16 February 2012 at 11:36 pm

    “James argues that 2011 was a status-quo election for National, the party that has won two-thirds of the time over the last century.”

    Possible to over-emphasise National’s popularity over the last century.

    First of all, the Nats of course didn’t exist as such until 1936 (or 1931 if you include the National Coalition between Reform and United).

    Second, if we focus on who actually won the popular vote (rather than the most seats) then you get the following:

    Labour: 1935 (1), 1938 (2), 1943 (3), 1946 (4), 1957 (5), 1972 (6), 1978 (7), 1981 (8), 1984 (9), 1987 (10), 1993 (Labour + Alliance = 53% + Peters = 62%) (11), 1999 (12), 2002 (13), 2005 (14).

    = 14 Elections.

    National: 1949 (1), 1951 (2), 1954 (3), 1960 (4), 1963 (5), 1966 (6), 1969 (7), 1975 (8), 1990 (9), 1996 (10), 2008 (11), 2011 (12).

    = 12 Elections.

    I’d also add that Labour lost by only 0.2% in 1954 and 1% in 1969 and arguably the Left won in 1996 (if you include Peters).

    Call me an utter bastard, but there you go.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      18 February 2012 at 8:29 pm

      Second, if we focus on who actually won the popular vote (rather than the most seats) then you get the following

      Yep, historically speaking, MMP should favour the Left – if it gets its shit together.

  3. Dotty 3
    17 February 2012 at 9:00 am

    What were James’ references to Paula Bennett’s health and a possible by election in Waitakere about?

    • millsy 3.1
      17 February 2012 at 9:17 am

      I don’t think we was speculating about PB’s health, I think he was just saying that Labour could win the seat back in the (unlikely) event she leaves for any reason.

      Interesting article by the way. Though I would disagree with a few of his points.

    • ianmac 3.2
      17 February 2012 at 9:18 am

      Not sure what is meant by the Peter’s paradox.

  4. Rose 4
    17 February 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Negativity isn’t inspiring. Positive messages are. Maybe Labour could change its line ‘Stop/no asset sales’ to ‘Keep/hold on to/grow our assets/resources’.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      18 February 2012 at 8:38 pm

      People are lossi-phers. They hate loss. They hate to lose something that they already have. Not losing a dollar you already have is far more motivating for most than the opportunity to make another dollar in the future.

      Therefore the negative message should stay IMO, but be partnered with a positive message.

      Regardless, the Right have access to far better PR focus group resources than the Left, hence their rapid fine tuning of the messages they push out to voters.

  5. Foreign Waka 5
    18 February 2012 at 7:21 pm

    It was the change of guards, internal fights about leadership and its selection (I haven’t seen much from the new Labour leader so far) lack of focus and no coherent ideas on the part of labour that decided the election. Considering all that National should have won in leaps and bounds – but it didn’t. It needed the traitor on the trough party – translated Maori Party – to hold on to power.