Where did Labour gain its extra votes?

Written By: - Date published: 4:59 pm, September 24th, 2017 - 66 comments
Categories: election 2017, jacinda ardern, labour, Politics - Tags:

I am a keen fan of reviewing campaigns to work out what worked.  That way next time you know what to do to ensure that the country has progressive leadership.

Labour’s overall gain in the election was significant, up 10.7% points.  But which parts of the country surged and which parts did not do so well?

As part of my post election catharsis I prepared a spreadsheet giving a rough and ready indicator of areas where the increase was most significant and other areas where it was not so good.  It is surprisingly clear what happened in the country.

The measure is a crude one.  It is the change in Labour’s proportion of the party vote from 2014 to 2017.  It is crude in that it contrasts proportions and takes no account of turnover.  And the figures are preliminary with a number of special votes to be counted.  In fact I would not be surprised if Labour and the Greens both gain a further seat.

I then tallied the figures across geographical regions.  I treated the Maori electorates separately as clearly something happened there.

Basically the figures suggest the increase in the vote in South and West Auckland was disturbingly small, Wellington was good, Christchurch really good, provincial areas were good especially in the South Island, the University electorates all showed significant improvement in party votes and the Maori electorates performed out of their skin.

Here is the table:

Auckland South 3.70%
Auckland West 7.40%
Waikato 9.50%
Auckland Istmus 9.90%
Auckland North 10.30%
Central North Island 10.50%
Wellington 11.30%
Canterbury rural 11.80%
Northland 12.20%
South Island rural 12.30%
Christchurch 13.70%
Dunedin 15.20%
Maori 18.50%

A few comments:

  1. The South Auckland electorates barely moved.  Perhaps the Labour vote has been maxed out and there is going to be no more persuasion occurring.  Turnout clearly should be the strategy and voting levels are not great.
  2. The West Auckland results are disappointing.  If it was not for a healthy boost from Helensville (11.9%) the result would have been very mediocre.
  3. Waikato’s results were relatively well distributed.
  4. Auckland Istmus’s results were boosted by very good results in Auckland Central (15.4%) and Jacinda’s own electorate of Mount Albert (13.7%).  The rest were a mixture with the electorates away from the city centre (Mt Roskill, Maungakiekie and Tamati) performing more poorly.
  5. Auckland North’s results were all healthy.
  6. Central North Island were all reasonably healthy with the East Coast performing best (12.6%).
  7. Wellington’s results were all pretty good with Wellington Central (13.3%) and Rongotai (12.9%) being stand outs.
  8. The rest of the electorates performed strongly with Christchurch Central and East and Dunedin North and South all performing well.
  9. Nelson performed exceptionally well (16.5%).
  10. But the pick of the seats were the Maori seats.

As for reasons for Auckland’s relatively poor performance I suspect that elevated real estate prices has made too many of us closet tories.  But organisationally it needs more dedicated resource.  If Labour wants to win in 2020 then it needs to make sure that Auckland is organised and ready to go.

66 comments on “Where did Labour gain its extra votes?”

  1. Incognito 1

    In Helensville (Sir John’s old electorate) it seems some interesting vote-splitting occurred: GP 2199 (5345) and LP 7789 (5619) with candidate votes in brackets. In 2014 the numbers were: GP 4801 (4433; Graham Kennedy) and LP 4430 (4425). Would love to know why.

    • Shazzadude 1.1

      Because the Greens’ candidate, Hayley Holt is a well-known TV personality.

    • gomango 1.2

      I am in the Helensville electorate and voted on Saturday. I voted national list and labour candidate, just because i thought it slightly humorous.. I have no idea who my local candidates are and under MMP it really doesn’t matter at all. For most electorates (and especially one like helensville) under MMP the candidate vote is worthless. It only has any value in a place like Epsom. I wouldn’t waste time analysing vote splitting in any electorate which is either overwhelmingly National or Labour because the marginal candidate vote has zero informational value.

      • Kevin 1.2.1

        More bizarre is electorates where a Labour candidate was voted in and those same voters party voted National. I just don’t get that.

        • C Dawg 1.2.1.1

          It’s like I want my important vote to keep my fake housing pricing and weak bright-line for gratuitous fiscal self-interest but I want to have an opposition local MP to be able to complain about EVERYTHING ELSE collapsing around me, not out of humanity o guilt really, just more self interest…

      • Incognito 1.2.2

        Thanks and yes, that was humorous.

  2. Anne 2

    Communications with local party members in Auckland leaves a lot to be desired. Once there used to be regular material sent which outlined up and coming events in a readable way. As far as I know there is no longer a fully functional regional office in Auckland and that has to be a significant part of the problem.

  3. Craig H 3

    Cheers Micky, very interesting. As a fellow Labour campaigner (Chch East), I am heartened to see that Christchurch has turned red once again, and that Poto and Duncan have performed really strongly as part of that. Also top marks to Anthony Rimell (Ilam) and Rachel Boyack (Nelson) for taking on powerful incumbents, and really pushing the Labour party vote up massively despite basically pushing the proverbial uphill.

    Preliminary total counts for 2017 (2014):
    National: 998,813 (1,010,464)
    Labour: 776,556 (519,146)
    NZ First: 162,988 (186,031)
    Green: 126,995 (210,764)

    Total L/NZ1/G = 1,066,539 (915,941) i.e. up 150K total votes even with Jacinda effectively seeing switching of votes to Labour from within the bloc.

    That’s not even taking into account the smaller parties i.e. TOP, Conservatives, Maori Party, ACT or United Future. And, as we all know, the specials are very likely to improve the results for Labour and the Greens.

    • mickysavage 3.1

      Thanks Craig. I am a big fan of Poto’s. She is a very grounded human representative of the people and we need more like her. She (and you all) have really got the seat humming and it has gone from strength to strength.

  4. Carolyn_nth 4

    Some gentrification of west and south Auckland has been going on I think.

    And people on mediocre incomes moving outwards to the likes of Helensville.
    How far north did you go with the Auckland North stats?

    • mickysavage 4.1

      Auckland North included Rodney but not Northland or Whangarei.

      • Carolyn_nth 4.1.1

        Thanks. I’m told there’s been quite a few people moving north to Wellsford and Warkworth areas in recent times.

        Basically people moving away from the housing problems closer to Auckland.

    • Tracey 4.2

      With over 32 suburbs average a million and many such owners, anecdotedly, owning a rental as well.?many former labour voters may well have voted for the status quo and englishs thinly veiled message that the market will move up again.

  5. Keith 5

    I thought there was recognition of Aucklands importance and a real effort with Auckland, with Matt McCarten and Andrew Little basing themselves in Grafton Rd.

    If so what was the issue?

    I have no idea if Labour already do this but Nationals use of focus groups and constant polling is a must. It cuts down the guesswork. You’ve got to fight 21st century fire with 21st century fire.

    I also think not only was the fiscal hole and extra tax lies similarly divined from such methods but crucially years of peddling misinformation that Labour are always worse with the economy and linking both sets of lies together paid dividends.

    I am certainly not suggesting that kind of dishonesty and deceitful treatment of voters intelligence but understanding fully what turns voters off National and applying pressure to those areas is crucial. It will also counter English et al’s future lies and we all know now how willing they all were to sell their souls to win.

    Just hoping the message is spread better in Auckland especially after Labour already recognised the fact will not win an election.

    • mickysavage 5.1

      Let’s just say the Auckland plans did not go as well as they should have this election campaign …

      • ScottGN 5.1.1

        Labour’s struggle in Auckland doesn’t have much to do with the fiscal hole and tax hikes.
        Nor probably does it have much to do with organisational capacity.
        It has everything to do with huge mortgages and National holding the Sword of Damocles over the heads of home owners in that city.
        It’s a dreadful thing to say but the last thing anybody who has managed the brutal business of getting a foothold in the Auckland housing market wants is affordable housing in any shape or form.
        And if it means people living in garages or sleeping in cars and the government spending an outrageous amount of money putting people into motels then so be it.

        • Tracey 5.1.1.1

          Yes self interest is strong in these ones

          • The Lone Haranguer 5.1.1.1.1

            Tracey,

            What you call “self interest” may well be called “survival” by those in that situation.

            Even as 10% drop in property values could have thousands of folk in an upside down position – and they wont vote for that, and it doesnt make them bad people.

        • Graeme 5.1.1.2

          National have certainly created a lot of loyal voters in the mortgage belt. The poor bastards are having to run that hard on the hamster wheel of meeting their commitments that the thought of not getting their tax adjustment, or the market declining is utterly terrifying. Hence the success of the dog whistles.

          National’s tax adjustments and campaign lies were precisely targeted at this group.

    • Anne 5.2

      … years of peddling misinformation that Labour are always worse with the economy and linking both sets of lies together paid dividends.

      Two relatives dropped by today and confessed that is the reason why they decided not to vote Labour. I swiftly reminded them of the Michael Cullen years and they left with a very large flea in their ears. It’s both barrels from me in future. No more pussy footing around with them. It is pitiful that adults can be so utterly stupid.

  6. DS 6

    A friend of mine also did a spreadsheet – and yes, it really shows the regional differences.

    https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/the-morning-after-new-zealand-politics/

    For perspective, National did worse in Dunedin North than in Manurewa, and Labour did better in Dunedin North than in Kelston.

  7. Sabine 7

    i would assume that it is not so much a case of ‘closet tory’ but rather a case of have moved and now live elsewhere or have lost their rental and now live in a car. It can’t be that hard to understand that in AKL the only guaranteed votes are from those that own their house and live in it, all others are two weeks away from voting for a different electorate.

    • Firepig 7.1

      (Breaking my own rule) – And Glen Innes and Panmure are gutted – full of empty sections, boarded up houses or new 2-up 2-down constructions not occupied by the original demographic. Onehunga is not better.

    • The Fairy Godmother 7.2

      And out South Auckland there is a large amount of people on Student visas or work visas who cannot vote who have replaced previous labour supporting residents.

  8. red-blooded 8

    Speaking as someone who worked within the wider Dunedin North team, we were organising and pushing towards election day from before the start of the year. We had a great campaigns manager, supported by a tight team. There was a huge push to increase the volunteer base, and that had happened even before the leadership change (which brought in more people). We’ve been door knocking and calling and leafletting for many months, and also put a lot of effort into supporting the candidates and upping the party vote in other parts of the lower South. That’s included door knocking days and regular phoning.

    We had a strong focus on the need for improved health services and a new hospital for the SDHB, and while it’s sad and awful that this was the same focus in 2014, voters remembered this and were angry about the constant barrage of bad news stories about people suffering from preventable problems because of our dysfunctional, under-resourced health board, which has been run by a commissioner for about a year now, with no improvement, and which is in a lot of debt that the government (or course) insists it pays down.

    I’m sure people in other parts of the country worked hard and there has been some great lifting of the vote, particularly in the Māori seats and in the South Island. We in Dunedin are really glad to be back as a red city, though – While our candidates won in 2014, we went blue after the specials last time, and we were determined not to let that happen again.

    • mickysavage 8.1

      Thanks RB and congratulations. The Dunedin results really stood out along with Nelson and the Maori seat results.

    • Ad 8.2

      Top work Red-Blooded and for the massive turnout and work.
      Awesome ground game.

      I managed to persuade my tribal-Nat mother-in-law in Maori Hill to avoid National and go to NZF, but she was always a local Mr Clark voter. Still thinks very highly of Hodgson.

  9. Chris 9

    I wonder if Jacinda’s mistep in promoting the decriminalisation of abortion may have cost her Christian votes in South Auckland ?

    • ScottGN 9.1

      By calling it a ‘misstep’ it seems you’re not actually ‘wondering’ at all really.

    • Tracey 9.2

      She didnt lie enough for the Christians, is that what you mean? Cos that good catholic christian English lied alot.

  10. Chris Carter 10

    Jacinta did extraordinarily well and Labour’s vote gain outside Auckland was impressive. It seems obvious to me as someone who campaigned in West Auckland for Labour for over 20 years that the failure to connect with “ethnic voters” was a key factor in those West and East Auckland electorates failing to lift Labour’s final result. I spent 7 years as Labour’s Ethnic Affairs Minister and many other years as Labour’s Ethnic Affairs Spokesperson. There is no substitute for personal relationships and close engagement in building support in the Chinese, Indian, Korean and the dozens of other ethnic communities that make up a big slice of Auckland’s population. To my successors as West Auckland MPs and to the current Labour leadership l urge you to attend every ethnic cultural event you are invited too, not just once but always. I never had a free weekend in the whole time l was an MP because attending ethnic events was so critical. Indeed the job of Ethnic Affairs Minister was the least popular choice in Cabinet jobs because of Helen’s recognition that those migrant votes were so important and could not be ignored. We just had to out perform the Nats in building those critical personal connections. I would like to think that my work in that area helped. Connecting in a very personal way with the 184 ethnic groups that help make up the greater Auckland area is even more critical now than it was in 1999.

    • mickysavage 10.1

      Thanks Chris and your work in the electorate was legendary. Your comment should be tattooed on the right hand of every Labour MP!

      • NixSaved 10.1.1

        Chris Carter is right with regards to looking after the different ethnic groups voters. I think the Nat’s have a head start there. I wandered over to the National party website and they have a page with different party groups, that includes different ethnic groups IE: Global IndiaNZ, Blue Dragons, Pinoys Go National. It’s interesting that National has a party group page, given that I hear a lot of non-left opponents criticize Labour of seemly being the only party ‘pandering to interest groups.’

        • mickysavage 10.1.1.1

          They do. I personally think it is superficial in the extreme but they have realised that they need to be diverse.

          In 2005 Don Brash complained about mainstream New Zealand and how everyone else was somehow not as good. Then we handed National their arse on a plate. Then they adjusted and had all these wonderful ethnic candidates pop up.

          Strategically I think they have done a good job. But I still think their red neck tendencies are not far below the surface.

  11. Mad Plumber 11

    The Canterbury Rural what regions did that cover. I always thought that there is quite a few who are not happy with the state of the water as we are the ones who notice the change. A lot go fishing and boating in the rivers and lakes. I do a lot of work installing water filtration units on farms, the owners moan about the cost but I do not comment about shitting in your own back yard but still am happy to take the money

  12. Adrian 12

    My bet in Auckland is that a large portion of the immigrant cohort want a lot more immigration so that family reunification and extra relatives etc
    will not be excluded.
    Not blaming them, it’s a natural desire and therefore Labour would be an anathema.

  13. swordfish 13

    Christchurch really good

    Yeah – comparing 2014 & 2017 Election Night results

    Christchurch East

    2014 Election Night …. 2017 Election Night

    Nat 40.6 ……………………… 36.2 ……………. – 4.4

    Lab 31.9 ……………………… 46.6 ……………. + 14.7

    Green 12.1 …………………… 6.4 ……………. – 5.7

    .

    Christchurch Central

    Nat 44.9 …………………… 40.3 ……………. – 4.6

    Lab 26.4 …………………… 40.4 ……………. + 14.0

    Green 15.4 ………………… 8.6 …………….. – 6.8

    .

    Port Hills

    Nat 47.9 …………………….. 41.3 ……………. – 6.6

    Lab 23.6 ……………………. 38.9 ……………. + 15.3

    Green 16.4 ………………… 10.0 ……………. – 6.4

    .

    Waimakariri

    Nat 57.9 …………………….. 53.9 ……………. – 4.0

    Lab 18.9 …………………….. 32.1 ……………. + 13.2

    Green 8.6 ……………………. 3.9 …………….. – 4.7

    .

    Ilam

    Nat 58.5 …………………….. 54.2 ……………. – 4.3

    Lab 17.5 …………………….. 30.1 ……………. + 12.6

    Green 12.1 ………………….. 6.7 …………….. – 5.4

    .

    Whereas nationwide

    2014 Election Night vs 2017 Election Night

    Nat …………….. – 2.1
    Lab …………….. + 11.1
    Green …………. – 4.1

    • The Lone Haranguer 13.1

      Christchurch is very interesting.

      Labour made good inroads there, but in urban Chch, the Nats still got more party votes for (I think) the third election in a row.

      Labour has got “its” city electorate seats back (Ilam isnt in that mix) so now its up to its electorate MPs to do good and get the party vote back.

  14. david 14

    Labour is paying a price for the Racial targeting of people with Chinese sounding names. What do you expect? You target a group thinking that overall you win with dog-whistle politics. But guess what, Asians turn up and vote.
    Labour has awoken a powerful growing group. If Winston goes with National, they may get them back. Because Asians dislike Winston’s mob more than anything.

    • … ” Labour has awoken a powerful growing group ” …

      Yes ,… and a group that , with their soft power tactics and foreign ownership of our farms far from the public’s observance and testing of broadband satellite techniques potentially used for ‘military purposes in our country ‘ ,… better walk carefully how they tread from here on in.

      It is a topic that is bubbling under in the background and relegated to the back seats after our general election atm regarding the latest news that we have a National party MP trained in one of China’s top university’s for the purpose of producing spy’s for their uses,…

      Bottom line is ?

      If you come here with designs of having card carrying members of the Chinese communist party monitoring Chinese students at our University’s or spy’s in our govt , – we’ve got ways and means to shut you down in a heartbeat.

      • WILD KATIPO 14.1.1

        Oh ,… and btw ?… if you think that’s unfair and try to use the ‘ racist card’ ?…

        How about fucking off for a start.

        There’s a saying ‘ this is New Zealand , mate ‘ .

        It might help to recall Helen Clarke had the same response towards Israeli Mossad agents operating illegally in New Zealand as well , – who are obliquely aligned with the USA in foreign policy.

        You even dare to come here trying to use surreptitious means to gain influence, – be it either political , economic or military,… there’s a great big fat FUCK OFF sign made especially just for you as soon as you enter the terminal doors at Mangere International airport.

        • david 14.1.1.1

          Exactly. Observe. These are the kind of people that shout from cars saying, go back to where you came from. Now these people blog.
          The Labour party encourages these people. Hi Phil Twyford. (but not the Greens, they’re decent people)
          What kind of person wants to associate with people like this. There is no condemnation….. .
          in NZ mate, there is a thing saying freedom of expression and voting for who ever you want.
          If you are Asian and work for the Labour party, just look at what they have unleashed. Take a shower and leave.

          • red-blooded 14.1.1.1.1

            david, I think a lot of Labour supporters were made uneasy by the publicity around Chinese-sounding names and property in Auckland. I have a few observations, though:
            1) This tactic was only used because the government refused to collect any information at all about who was buying houses and (more importantly) where they lived. There was no other method for drawing attention to the large number of houses being bought as investment properties by people living offshore.
            2) There is now (because of the discussion that was started by this move) some (very basic) tax policy aimed at investors who flip a property within two years. before, there was nothing.
            3) Again, this tactic pushed the government to start collecting some (very basic, possibly misleading) info about the country of residence of buyers. I say “possibly misleading” because it’s only based on IRD addresses, and these don’t have to be primary residences.
            4) China (and many other countries) forbid overseas buyers from buying housing. There’s nothing racist about this – it’s about looking after the interests of the people who live in your country, rather than the interests of people who live elsewhere but use your property market as a way to get a return on their money. In a time of housing shortage and price inflation (and prices were rocketing when Labour released this info) this pushes prices up further and makes it harder for local buyers to get a house.

            I don’t deny that this was an uncomfortable discussion and I understand why members of the local Chinese community might have felt hurt or attacked – I definitely think the messaging could have been handled more effectively. I do think the big issue was the lack of information, though. Housing was becoming a really big issue and the Nats simply didn’t want to give anyone grounds for making informed criticisms.

            I certainly would never say (or think) that Asian people should go elsewhere, and I sure don’t support anyone who does make racist remarks like this. I do understand what pushed Labour into using this tactic, though. I’m not sure it was a wise decision, over all – it probably did feed into some people’s latent racism – but I don’t think the motive for this move was racist.

        • alwyn 14.1.1.2

          “It might help to recall Helen Clarke had the same response”.
          You might like to reflect on one other response that Helen Clark had.
          She apologised to Chinese immigrants to New Zealand for the treatment and abuse they had received from racist bigots like yourself.
          I see you are still ranting on about the yellow peril.

          • david 14.1.1.2.1

            Helen had the Asian vote. Because she was decent, knew her history and included people. Labour could have talked about immigration numbers in a respectful way, like the Greens. But they had decided to out Trump Winston.
            They may have lost the Asian vote for a generation.

        • WILD KATIPO 14.1.1.3

          All I be saying is people coming in from any country , – doesn’t matter which , – in large numbers will contain among them some who have attitudes and motivations that are not identical to the others and are not beneficial to the country of their destination. You know that , and don’t try and pretend all are wonderful human beings where butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.

          Theres a reason nations have a police force , a military , and customs.

          We are also a Pacific nation , – not an Asian one.

          The social problems caused by mass immigration have marginalized those of the Pacific in favour of those from Asia. And , – heres the kicker ,- this whole immigration racket has been advanced by the interests of BIG BUSINESS.

          It is big business that has been driving this whole ridiculous out of control immigration setting , – and much of that has been foreign interests who place New Zealanders interests right down the list. Low wages , obscene house prices and the deliberate retarding of building houses to keep prices high , – all deliberate and working in tandem with the incumbent National party.

          It would be refreshing if all these bleeding hearts quit with all the crocodile tears , the faux altruism, aesthetics and pseudo noble gestures just long enough to actually admit their real motivations are anything BUT concern about racism or humanitarian values , – but rather a cynical , opportunistic money grab borne more out of their inclinations towards avarice and greed and their sense of social standing than of parading their virtues as that of the social justice warrior.

          After all , the current charge being leveled against the National party is of being LIARS , – and sits well with this and many other past and present hypocrisy’s .

          This is just one more of them.

      • gomango 14.1.2

        would just point out that you are being logically inconsistent. If an Asian has the right to vote, then by legal definition any land they own is not foreign owned………

        • WILD KATIPO 14.1.2.1

          The issue is not even ‘ If an Asian has the right to vote, then by legal definition any land they own is not foreign owned……… ‘ .

          The issue is at least twofold : in the first instance we have foreign speculators. This is simply adding to the detriment of our domestic housing stock shortage while pushing houses up for those that live here beyond affordability. Asian or not. Labour has made it policy that they will end that.

          Speaking of which , – every other country has laws preventing the sale of their lands to those that do not even live in that country , – or at least curtailing that process realistically , and as an example , – China itself. New Zealanders cannot buy houses , – let alone land ,- in China, yet their affluent can play the markets , buy land , houses ,… and not live here and still collect the rent.

          And National has consistently been dragging its feet , – deliberately ,- on this issues for years. Why ?… because it suited them and their elitist colleagues to do so. Its no coincidence that so many National party MP’s have intimate business relations with mainland Chinese businesses.

          And that creates an immediate conflict of interests whereby their rulings and policy settings are geared once again , to favor them and their colleagues.

          There is no issue at all with Asians , – or anyone else , – here who is a New Zealand CITIZEN WHO CAN VOTE , – they are a New Zealand citizen. There may be an issue if it is ‘ family’ owned / part of a trust / business that is based offshore , however. Which brings us to large tracts of land ie ; farms/ stations ,… whereby if there are not sufficient laws governing this , these lands can be foreign owned by proxy.

  15. NixSaved 15

    Is it unusual that Maungakiekie has a National candidate that wins the seat, but not the party vote? If Labour does indeed win the Party Vote in that seat, I wonder why the voters didn’t cast their electorate vote for Priyanca?

    • Shazzadude 15.1

      I’m not sure if it’s because of an inherent bias against non-English surnames, or just that Chloe Swarbrick had a bit of a following after her good effort in the Auckland mayoralty race.

      • DoublePlusGood 15.1.1

        Looking at the numbers, I’d say it’s those two things, plus name recognition of Denise Lee.

  16. DH 16

    IMO the Auckland results were pretty predictable. Strong Labour areas have been infiltrated by middle class people buying (and renting) houses where they can afford them. Those numbers aren’t huge (yet) but probably enough to explain the poor results for Labour in areas like Sth and West Auckland.

    I’d also surmise that many hard up people don’t vote and with the disadvantaged in Auckland being worse off than ever I expect fewer of them voted this time around.

    Auckland might also serve as warning to the left of the political perils of bringing in ‘skilled migrants’. They’d typically be above average earners and more likely to vote National.

    • mickysavage 16.1

      I agree. Real estate values are far too prominent in local conversations. Makes us all middle class.

      South Auckland struggled with turn out. West Auckland struggled with conflicting loyalties. Labour’s brain trust needs to get its head around this.

  17. The Lone Haranguer 17

    DH,

    A cynic might read your final comment and observe that we shouldnt bring in skilled migrants in case they vote for the right. And that its not about whats best for New Zealand

    A cynic might also think that the Greens call for more refugees is because they would vote for the left. And that its not about whats best for New Zealand.

    I can see why folk voted for NZF

    • DH 17.1

      “A cynic might read your final comment and observe that we shouldnt bring in skilled migrants in case they vote for the right. And that its not about whats best for New Zealand”

      You might observe that, one might also make the corollary that curbing the flow of ‘skilled migrants’ may be what’s best for the country.

      “A cynic might also think that the Greens call for more refugees is because they would vote for the left. And that its not about whats best for New Zealand.”

      That’s a pretty poor analogy, would take a few hundred years to get enough votes from the increased trickle of refugees.

  18. Stephen Bradley 18

    Thanks to ‘Mickey’ for getting the ball rolling. When the final tallies are in we will need some detailed analysis, polling place by polling place. Some of this will be done in the university politics departments. Some will be done by MP’s parliamentary research staff, we hope. This information can be correlated with data from the 2018 Census, when available. All of this needs collating and coordinating so that parties and all electors can increase our understanding of what the election meant.

    We could try to increase the Labour vote by taking voters off other parties. Hard, but we need to remain competitive.

    Finding and connecting with every potential Labour voter is the real challenge. Just because the very people who most need a Labour government are the hardest to log into the bureaucracy of enrollment and elections. Constant precarity of residence and employment; constant daily battle to stay afloat. I suspect many impoverished women looking after children and other dependants are in this group.

    Anyway, congratulations to the Maori Labour Caucus for bringing home those Maori seats. If we can build on that great effort We will be practising what we preach. With Maori Labour MPs in every Maori seat and some in General seats, Labour has restored its mana. Kia kaha

  19. DoublePlusGood 19

    The main issue is how much of that was grabbed from right wing parties, and how much was from the Greens.
    Because in Wellington Central and Rongotai for instance all it looks like they did was eat Green votes.

    • McFlock 19.1

      Nationally, Labour went from 25% to 35%. Greens went from 8% to 7%.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.2

      What Swordfish said. A 6.5% swing to the Left pretty much answers your question.

      • DoublePlusGood 19.2.1

        Not really – I know it’s pre specials, but it looks like in Wellington Central and Rongotai the Greens have lost 5-10% of the total vote to Labour.
        So that isn’t a standout performance from Labour, unless you consider wrecking their key support partner’s vote to be standout. The areas where they took the most votes from National are far more interesting to know.

  20. Craig H 20

    Big question – where to from here? Do we continue to push Auckland or do we seriously look at turning some of the smaller cities red as well? Rachel Boyack has shown how strongly it can be done in Nelson – can we replicate that in Timaru and Invercargill? In Whanganui, Palmerston North, New Plymouth?

  21. Hongi Ika 21

    We need to get some real growth going not just inflated house prices and English Language Schools for low grade overseas students ?

    We need to train and educate our own people first ?

  22. Hongi Ika 22

    The neoliberal NZ Ponzi Scheme needs to stop an economy built on increased house prices and immigration can not keep going without seriously damaging our social fabric, we are already seeing the results with housing affordability and homelessness.

    We also have severe long term damage being done to the lower socio economic sectors of our society with the resulting mental health problems caused by poor diets, poor living conditions, lawlessness and child poverty ?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts