First of all, people are talking about a 'vote for change' based on the combination of Labour, Greens and New Zealand First.
‘Change’ was not a candidate on the voting paper I saw.
People voted for parties. Those parties need to sort out a coalition / governing arrangement.
Realistically, National are in the stronger position. Winston dislikes the Greens and Labour would have to divide the baubles of office between themselves, NZ 1st and the Greens.
People trying to convince themselves that Lab-Green-NZ 1st is just around the corner are setting themselves up for disappointment. Another one. Gluttons for punishment.
Second, let's be honest about Labour's success. The Labour-Green bloc is sitting at 41.5%. This represents a very modest improvement on its performance on 2011 and 2008 (putting aside the disaster of 2014). Jacindamania didn't really happen, unless something very odd is lurking in the special votes.
Where did Labour's support come from? Mostly from the Greens and New Zealand 1st, and probably an increase in turnout amongst Labour voters, certainly compared to 2014 ... but it was hardly the tsunami that was needed.
Ardern has, however, done very well. She deserves the chance to give it a proper go. The muddled message on tax was damaging. Her performance in the debates was not as good as her fans think - she resorted to shouting "Who agrees with you?" at Bill English when the tax issue came up, when English was clearly talking about the zero growth in key areas, not Joyce's mythical hole. It played well with Labour supporters - sock it to him, Jacinda! - but to everyone else it made it look like she was trying to drown the debate on an issue she didn't want to talk about, which, in fairness, she probably was.
There has to be a bit of honest self-examination on the left.
Labour has to look at it why - after nine years of pretty rubbish National government - they are still struggling. This is not a fundamentally leftwing country that occasionally loses its marbles and votes for National. It's a right wing country with a bit of a social conscience. I'm worried that the radicals will start the usual chant that Labour was not bold enough, and would have won if it had been more left wing. Those are the sort of people who think 2014's disaster was down to 'the media.' Like I said before, gluttons for punishment.
The Greens have to face up to a very long process of rebuilding. The demise of the Maori Party and Mana might open up an interesting opportunity for them, particularly if Marama Davidson is confirmed as co-leader. Will they remain on the left, as the radical wing of the Labour Party or (bearing in mind how Labour has treated them in the past, particularly in 2005) adopt a more centrist position? The idea is poisonous to a lot of Green voters - but some of them are really Labour voters who want to push Labour left.
I think the Greens supporting National will be too much this time. But James Shaw is on my radio right now, talking about how Bill English is welcome to call him - perhaps a hint of where Shaw see the Greens in the future. Their job isn't to deliver disgruntled Labour voters to Labour; their job is to protect the environment. They can't do that at all from the opposition benches. They can do something in government.
Showing posts with label NZ Greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NZ Greens. Show all posts
Sunday, 24 September 2017
Saturday, 23 September 2017
The 2017 election thread
Pre-Election Witterings (written before polls closed, but not posted until after 7pm) I gave Ian Lees-Galloway my constituency vote, and my party vote to the Greens. I wanted to deny National the great city of Palmerston North, and make sure the Greens got into parliament.
As for who forms the government ... I am not feeling optimistic. Others may have been carried away by Jacindamania, but I have remained dourly unimpressed.
Almost. It was hard, as the polls seemed to surge ever upwards ... But I felt it would be a struggle for Labour to take the lead, and retain it. The collapse of the Greens and the waning of Winston Peters helped ... But Labour have not made decisive inroads into National's support.
43% seems to be the magic number, allowing a government to be formed with just one significant other. For Labour, it will (probably) mean they can form a coalition with the Greens (lots of caveats apply) and, perhaps, the Maori Party, and freeze New Zealand first out. That would be my ideal result. For National, 43% would mean they can call out to Winston, and their ACT tail-ender.
Unfortunately I think National are more likely to breach 43%.
The other day I predicted Nats on 43% and Labour on 39%. Banging those figures into the elections calculator gives the following parliament:
Diligent lurgee watchers will note I've abandoned my hopes of Hone Harawira and Mana staging a comeback in Te Tai Tokerau. If he does pull it off it may create an overhang; but given Labour's churlish attitude towards Mana, it probably doesn't make things easier for them.
7.03 Listening to coverage with John Campbell.
7.06 Lprent (who told me off for advocating eating the rich, earlier in the day) has an election thread on The Standard. I imagine it will be a bit livelier than this one. But mine is best.
7.09 1.8% counted!
7.10 2% counted! I can't keep up! Alas, my prediction is very on-the-nose thus far. I remember 2005, where Labour started well behind and slowly dragged it back, eventually crossing over in the final few votes. Subsequent elections have been far more static, with the initial figures hardly changing. I hope for the former, expect the latter.
7.14 I can't hear him, but I can see Mike Hosking. And Michelle Boag. This may be more than I can endure. Time to break out the whisky.
7.20 If my prediction and the early results hold, the left will have to take a long honest look at itself. This is the National Party shaping up for a forth term, and retain its vote share inspite of losing John Key. Blunty, they have to acknowledge that this is not a leftwing country that has inexplicably voted for National for a decade; it is a rightwing country that occasionally does the decent thing. Labour and the wider left will have to reconsider what it stands for. This isn't how I want things to be, but it is how I think they are.
7.24 Blaming New Zealanders for rejecting Labour - if they have - is to miss the point. If you can't win against a government that's been hanging about like a bad smell for 9 years, then you have to ask some pretty fundamental questions of yourself and your strategy.
7.26 Winston Peters tells John Campbell he'll only talk once the results are in. Then shut up, you grisly revenant.
7.29 David Parker is picking up votes in Epsom, inspite of exhortations to the left to vote for National's Paul Goldsmith. My guess is it is ACT supporters getting confused because the Nats were voting Seymour, and the left were voting for Goldsmith.
7.31 Aotearoa Legalise Cannibas on 0.2%. ACT on 0.4%. Time to get rid of those absurd fringe parties that no-one really cares about.
7.36 12% counted and - hideously - National are surpassing my prediction. Currently on 46.5%. If that is maintained, they'll barely have lost ground from 2014.
7.47 National SLUMP to 46%, with 17% of the vote counted. Labour SOAR to 36.5% And Jacinda Ardern is burying Melissa Lee. Good.
7.56 Stuart Nash ahead in Napier. I hope he is not entertaining any notion of a leadership challenge. Ardern has earned a full stint.
7.59 National creep up again, to 46.2%, with 20% counted. Labour slip a bit to 36.3%.
8.00 I am disappointed. I hadn't expected Labour to beat National, but it looks like their support has waned in the final days. Unfortunately, it looks like New Zealand have selected the known Devil over the swanky new one. Frustratingly, in spite of running against a corrupt, tired and dull government that has more than outstayed its welcome, Labour have failed to do anything more than capture the Green votes lost after Turei's moment of madness. Still time for things to change, but it's hard to see Labour and Greens putting on 6%.
8.10 there's only one thing for it! Deploy sentimental 80s soul-lite!
8.12 I'm glad I can only see Mike Hosking. I don't think I could bear his smugness if I could hear it.
8.17 It looks like David Seymour has got Epsom, so unfortunately ACT will survive yet again. Frustratingly, David Parker won well over 1300 votes; Seymour's current majority is just over 900 votes. If the lefties had voted tactically they might have been able to make 2017 the final ACT (see what I did there?)
8.22 Labour still slipping ... now on 36.1% with 25% counted. National steady on 46.2%. If Labour drop too far 36%, my earlier warning to Stuart Nash might not be enough. The whiff of power does strange things to people.
8.25 TOP must be finished. Gareth Morgan won't have the patience to spend years trying to build up a real party. So, United Future gone, the Maori Party gone, Mana gone, TOP never got there ... Why does ACT have to survive this Massacre of the Minor Parties?
20.32 Labour SLIDE to 36% dead, with 28% counted.
20.38 Labour back up to 36.1%. Put the leadership bid on ice, Stuart!
8.44 Hone Harawira 1800 votes behind Kelvin Davis. Mana are finished.
8.48 And now it's National on 46.4% versus Labour in 35.9%, with 31% counted. This is like 2005 in reverse - the gap is widening as the night wears on. Basically Labour have cannibalised the Greens. The actual balance between the right and left blocks hasn't changed.
I'm going to say it - Jacindamania was an illusion.
8.59 Said it before, but it bear repeating - Jeremy Corbyn had two years to get himself dug in and a highly ffective campaigning organisation effectively under his control. Jacinda Ardern only had the useless Labour Party.
9.00 So, a dreadful hour. Labour slipping and National slowly moving upwards with 41% counted. The Greens looking safe, thank goodness. But the other minor parties seem to have been annihilated. Apart from ACT, which seems to be as unkillable as Michael Myers.
9.18 The whisky is starting to kick in. I'm numb.
9.25 We've got 57% of the vote counted. National are still going up, now on 46.7% and 58 seats, with Labour down to 35.5%. I thought I was being a miserable pessimistic Grinch, predicting 43/39.
9.39 We've got 66% of the vote counted. National now 46.6% and Labour still 35.5%. Greens stuck on 5.9%. Really disappointing result, to be honest.
So it looks like National will need NZ 1st, as all their other options have been annihilated. They are welcome to him. Everything Winston touches turns to excrement. It would almost guarantee a Labour-Green victory in 2020. Whereas a Lab-Green-NZ 1st coalition would see Bill “Third Time Lucky” English installed as PM in 2020, with a majority of about 120.
9.57 Labour creep back up, a whole tenth of a percent. But there isn't going to be a late surge liek there was in 2005. Not with 78% of the vote counted. National 46.5%, and Labour 35.6% . The Greens slip a bit more, to 5.8%.
10.00 Another hour of scour. Virtually no change in the relative position of the parties. Everything seems to be pretty much locked in. This may be the final posting from lefthandpalm, for tonight.
As for who forms the government ... I am not feeling optimistic. Others may have been carried away by Jacindamania, but I have remained dourly unimpressed.
Almost. It was hard, as the polls seemed to surge ever upwards ... But I felt it would be a struggle for Labour to take the lead, and retain it. The collapse of the Greens and the waning of Winston Peters helped ... But Labour have not made decisive inroads into National's support.
43% seems to be the magic number, allowing a government to be formed with just one significant other. For Labour, it will (probably) mean they can form a coalition with the Greens (lots of caveats apply) and, perhaps, the Maori Party, and freeze New Zealand first out. That would be my ideal result. For National, 43% would mean they can call out to Winston, and their ACT tail-ender.
Unfortunately I think National are more likely to breach 43%.
The other day I predicted Nats on 43% and Labour on 39%. Banging those figures into the elections calculator gives the following parliament:
- ACT New Zealand - 1 seat
- Greens - 9 seats
- Labour - 47 seats
- Māori Party - 1 seat
- National - 52 seats
- NZ 1st - 10 seats
Diligent lurgee watchers will note I've abandoned my hopes of Hone Harawira and Mana staging a comeback in Te Tai Tokerau. If he does pull it off it may create an overhang; but given Labour's churlish attitude towards Mana, it probably doesn't make things easier for them.
7.03 Listening to coverage with John Campbell.
7.06 Lprent (who told me off for advocating eating the rich, earlier in the day) has an election thread on The Standard. I imagine it will be a bit livelier than this one. But mine is best.
7.09 1.8% counted!
7.10 2% counted! I can't keep up! Alas, my prediction is very on-the-nose thus far. I remember 2005, where Labour started well behind and slowly dragged it back, eventually crossing over in the final few votes. Subsequent elections have been far more static, with the initial figures hardly changing. I hope for the former, expect the latter.
7.14 I can't hear him, but I can see Mike Hosking. And Michelle Boag. This may be more than I can endure. Time to break out the whisky.
7.20 If my prediction and the early results hold, the left will have to take a long honest look at itself. This is the National Party shaping up for a forth term, and retain its vote share inspite of losing John Key. Blunty, they have to acknowledge that this is not a leftwing country that has inexplicably voted for National for a decade; it is a rightwing country that occasionally does the decent thing. Labour and the wider left will have to reconsider what it stands for. This isn't how I want things to be, but it is how I think they are.
7.24 Blaming New Zealanders for rejecting Labour - if they have - is to miss the point. If you can't win against a government that's been hanging about like a bad smell for 9 years, then you have to ask some pretty fundamental questions of yourself and your strategy.
7.26 Winston Peters tells John Campbell he'll only talk once the results are in. Then shut up, you grisly revenant.
7.29 David Parker is picking up votes in Epsom, inspite of exhortations to the left to vote for National's Paul Goldsmith. My guess is it is ACT supporters getting confused because the Nats were voting Seymour, and the left were voting for Goldsmith.
7.31 Aotearoa Legalise Cannibas on 0.2%. ACT on 0.4%. Time to get rid of those absurd fringe parties that no-one really cares about.
7.36 12% counted and - hideously - National are surpassing my prediction. Currently on 46.5%. If that is maintained, they'll barely have lost ground from 2014.
7.47 National SLUMP to 46%, with 17% of the vote counted. Labour SOAR to 36.5% And Jacinda Ardern is burying Melissa Lee. Good.
7.56 Stuart Nash ahead in Napier. I hope he is not entertaining any notion of a leadership challenge. Ardern has earned a full stint.
7.59 National creep up again, to 46.2%, with 20% counted. Labour slip a bit to 36.3%.
8.00 I am disappointed. I hadn't expected Labour to beat National, but it looks like their support has waned in the final days. Unfortunately, it looks like New Zealand have selected the known Devil over the swanky new one. Frustratingly, in spite of running against a corrupt, tired and dull government that has more than outstayed its welcome, Labour have failed to do anything more than capture the Green votes lost after Turei's moment of madness. Still time for things to change, but it's hard to see Labour and Greens putting on 6%.
8.10 there's only one thing for it! Deploy sentimental 80s soul-lite!
8.12 I'm glad I can only see Mike Hosking. I don't think I could bear his smugness if I could hear it.
8.17 It looks like David Seymour has got Epsom, so unfortunately ACT will survive yet again. Frustratingly, David Parker won well over 1300 votes; Seymour's current majority is just over 900 votes. If the lefties had voted tactically they might have been able to make 2017 the final ACT (see what I did there?)
8.22 Labour still slipping ... now on 36.1% with 25% counted. National steady on 46.2%. If Labour drop too far 36%, my earlier warning to Stuart Nash might not be enough. The whiff of power does strange things to people.
8.25 TOP must be finished. Gareth Morgan won't have the patience to spend years trying to build up a real party. So, United Future gone, the Maori Party gone, Mana gone, TOP never got there ... Why does ACT have to survive this Massacre of the Minor Parties?
20.32 Labour SLIDE to 36% dead, with 28% counted.
20.38 Labour back up to 36.1%. Put the leadership bid on ice, Stuart!
8.44 Hone Harawira 1800 votes behind Kelvin Davis. Mana are finished.
8.48 And now it's National on 46.4% versus Labour in 35.9%, with 31% counted. This is like 2005 in reverse - the gap is widening as the night wears on. Basically Labour have cannibalised the Greens. The actual balance between the right and left blocks hasn't changed.
I'm going to say it - Jacindamania was an illusion.
8.59 Said it before, but it bear repeating - Jeremy Corbyn had two years to get himself dug in and a highly ffective campaigning organisation effectively under his control. Jacinda Ardern only had the useless Labour Party.
9.00 So, a dreadful hour. Labour slipping and National slowly moving upwards with 41% counted. The Greens looking safe, thank goodness. But the other minor parties seem to have been annihilated. Apart from ACT, which seems to be as unkillable as Michael Myers.
9.18 The whisky is starting to kick in. I'm numb.
9.25 We've got 57% of the vote counted. National are still going up, now on 46.7% and 58 seats, with Labour down to 35.5%. I thought I was being a miserable pessimistic Grinch, predicting 43/39.
9.39 We've got 66% of the vote counted. National now 46.6% and Labour still 35.5%. Greens stuck on 5.9%. Really disappointing result, to be honest.
So it looks like National will need NZ 1st, as all their other options have been annihilated. They are welcome to him. Everything Winston touches turns to excrement. It would almost guarantee a Labour-Green victory in 2020. Whereas a Lab-Green-NZ 1st coalition would see Bill “Third Time Lucky” English installed as PM in 2020, with a majority of about 120.
9.57 Labour creep back up, a whole tenth of a percent. But there isn't going to be a late surge liek there was in 2005. Not with 78% of the vote counted. National 46.5%, and Labour 35.6% . The Greens slip a bit more, to 5.8%.
10.00 Another hour of scour. Virtually no change in the relative position of the parties. Everything seems to be pretty much locked in. This may be the final posting from lefthandpalm, for tonight.
Wednesday, 20 September 2017
Bugger
Still, the Greens look safe. That's SOMETHING.
And if NZ First don't get back in (assuming Winston loses Northland and they slip 0.1% more ... Well, I'll try very hard to lament the undemocratic wasted vote while punching the air and and dancing like a jalopy.
IF (big if) the poll is realised on Saturday and we end up with English & Co back in charge again, then Labour have to think pretty hard about why it happened. Putting it down to the greed / stupidity of the electorate isn’t going to help.
Labour have to think why (if) they opted for National. After all, last week the voters were smart and engaged because the Colmar Brunton poll showed them supporting Labour.
Monday, 18 September 2017
Prediction
There's nothing stupider on the internet than putting down your thoughts in an indisputable form. So that, of course is what I am going to do:
NAT – 42%
LAB – 39%
NZF – 8%
GRE – 6%
TOP – 2%
MAO – 1.5% (With electorate win(s))
MAN – 0.5% (With electorate win)
ACT – 0.5% (With electorate win)
UNF – 0.5%
Sadly, I don't see Labour riding Jacindamania to victory. National are banging the TAX-FEAR drum very loudly and it will have its usual effect. A combination of unforgivable unpreparedness on Labour's part, Ardern's gutsy but naive 'Captain's call' on tax, and some bloodyminded mischief from the Greens will probably see Blundering Bill home.
The Greens will (hopefully) avoid the chop. I'll do my own little bit for them, though resentfully, for any party that is as tactically incompetent as they have been probably deserves oblivion; but I'll sullenly and resentfully give them my party vote because the environment is more important than them or me.
My wild card is Te Tai Tokerau. I'm going to say Hone Harawira will surprise everyone by reclaiming the seat. I've got no evidence to support this whatsoever, and I merely proffer the idea in the spirit of mischief. Davis has been busy doing other things (like confusing everyone over Labour's tax policy) and may not have given his narrow majority enough TLC to fend off Mana, without the Maori Party splitting the vote.
NAT – 42%
LAB – 39%
NZF – 8%
GRE – 6%
TOP – 2%
MAO – 1.5% (With electorate win(s))
MAN – 0.5% (With electorate win)
ACT – 0.5% (With electorate win)
UNF – 0.5%
Sadly, I don't see Labour riding Jacindamania to victory. National are banging the TAX-FEAR drum very loudly and it will have its usual effect. A combination of unforgivable unpreparedness on Labour's part, Ardern's gutsy but naive 'Captain's call' on tax, and some bloodyminded mischief from the Greens will probably see Blundering Bill home.
The Greens will (hopefully) avoid the chop. I'll do my own little bit for them, though resentfully, for any party that is as tactically incompetent as they have been probably deserves oblivion; but I'll sullenly and resentfully give them my party vote because the environment is more important than them or me.
My wild card is Te Tai Tokerau. I'm going to say Hone Harawira will surprise everyone by reclaiming the seat. I've got no evidence to support this whatsoever, and I merely proffer the idea in the spirit of mischief. Davis has been busy doing other things (like confusing everyone over Labour's tax policy) and may not have given his narrow majority enough TLC to fend off Mana, without the Maori Party splitting the vote.
Saturday, 20 September 2014
Election 2014!! The live, rolling, increasingly intoxicated Post From Hell
7.00 - Drinking red (naturally) wine. A 2011 Mt hector Pinot Noir. Very nice it is too - likely the last nice thing I may experience for the next couple of hours. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed! And if we're not doomed, we may be in even bigger trouble. Imagine if the person who scheduled the NZ Inc. announcement for the same day as Dotcom's Big Disappointment gets a hand on the levers of power ...
So I am NOT anticipating a good night. I expect John Key's corrupt, incompetent government to be returned for another three years. This prospect is, of course, terrible. The only thing worse might be if it includes ACT.
Still, every cloud has a silver lining. The next few months should see the slow motion destruction of John Key's reputation and his government's exposure as a bunch of miserable, self-serving conniving liars as Dirty Politics continues to corrode. By 2017, even the most vindictive lefties and stalwart Tories will be desperate to see National put out of its misery.
So let's get on with it ..
7.01 - Nothing too bad so far. Other than Mike Hosking. Which is quite bad enough, really.
7.04 - Will this be a 2005 election, where Labour start miles behind and slowly fights its way back, or like 2008 and and 2011, where Labour starts behind and stays behind?
If it is like the last two, we can put the myth of the mighty Labour vote in South Auckland to bed once and for all - whatever happened in 2005 must have been a once-off.
7.05 - Mike Hosking officially says something stupid, wondering if Labour 'might' increase their share of the vote from 19% of early votes. took him just five minutes. Which is probably an improvement.
7.10 Early numbers show the Nats on 50.9% with 3.5% counted ... Are they about to dip under 50%? that's a pretty quick falling away. A percent off for every percent counted. Long may it continue!
7.13 - Nats on 50%, falling fast. Dare I say they will end up on 40%?
7.16 - A majority of the 7.2% of votes counted reject John Key! There is hope for the nation!
7.19 - The conservatives are hovering about 4.6%. In the interests of democracy, I'd rather the they got 5.1% rather than 4.9%. I hate to see votes wasted, even when they are for ridiculous parties. I'd much prefer to see then get no votes at all, of course.
7.23 - If this is going to be a 2005 election, then National could be in trouble. In 2005, Labour started very far behind (just like tonight) and dragged it back at 1% per 10% counted. If that happens tonight, then Labour will be comfortably above 30%. Of course, that didn't happen in 2008 and 2011, so the odds are it won't happen ...
7.24 - Mike Hosking must have almost choked on that grudging praise for Cunliffe - "A better opponent" than anticipated! Piss off, Mike!
7.29 - National on 48.6, so falling away nicely. But where is it going? Labour seem stuck on 23.5%.
19.31 - 431 people in Epsom have voted for Christine Ranking (thus far)? Oh dear.
19.37 - Mike Hosking is a national embarrassment.
19.42 - Has everyone stopped counting? We've been stuck about 15% for yonks.
19.50 - Just piss off, Mike Hosking, with your inane right-wing, biased unprofessional bleating.
19.56 - Ahahahahahaha. One of Hosking's studio commentators just tried to mention Nick Hager. Hosking immediately tried to cut him off and then terminated the conversation. What a dick.
20.04 - Count, New Zealand!
20.08 - Percentage counted is starting to move again. 18.2% in. Unfortunately, National are still stubbornly above 48%. Have they not read the script?
20.10 - Greens are in ‘Desperate trouble’ according to Hosking. I think I might be complaining, tomorrow, when the hangover clears. They've actually just topped 10%, so building nicely.
20.17 - Insanely, National's vote is going UP as more votes are counted. Only very marginally, from about 48.4% to 48.5% - but it is still abhorrent and wrong and entirely at odds with the Laws of Electoral Physics.
20.20 - Labour might FINALLY be about to trip over 24%. EDIT - That was based on TV1 figures. But the official Election Results website still has them stuck below what TV1 is showing.
20.27 - According to the Election results website, National's share of the vote is climbing. It's now at 48.57. This is MADNESS!!
20.28 - 48.71%.
20.29 - 48.75%
20.32 - 48.81% ... Then 48.79% ... THE TIDE HAS TURNED!!
20.33 - Unfortunately, Labour are also going backwards. 23.70%.
20.34 - National 48.83. Damn it, I said THE TIDE HAS TURNED!! Listen to me, New Zealand.
20.35 - National collapse to 48.75%. Mwahahahahaha! The rout commences! I'm going to stop doing this now ...
20.40 - So, a quarter of the votes have been counted. National are sitting on 48%. Labour are mired on 23.5%. The Greens and NZ First are both about 9-10%. Mana will get 2 MPs on current figures. Ditto Maori. Obviously, that's good news for one party but not for the other. Singletons for ACT and UF.
I'm prediciting the Labour and the Greens may get another 3%. But hopes (or fears) of a grand coalition of the left are looking very faint.
20.43 - And no sooner do I post that than National's share of the vote goes up and Labour's goes down ... 48.84% versus 23.75%. The horror! The horror!
20.49 - National hit 49% of the party vote. (And then immediately drop back to 48.96% .. I feel like I'm being toyed with!)
20.51 - Michelle Boag sounds sane compared to Mike Hosking.
20.52 - National plummet to 48.90%!! They are being driven from the field in total disorder!!
21.00 - We have a third of the vote in now. National are still riding very high at 48.9% of the vote. Labour are sinking, slowly. And everything else is as it was 20 minutes ago, when we had a fifth in. Once we get up to half way, I think we may see a bit of movement in the left vote. Upwards movement, I mean. But by that point, the amount of vote left to effect a change with will be very, very small.
21.04 - Colin Craig doesn't like "the system" - presumably he means MMP. Does he actually believe he would be doing better under First Past The Post?
21.06 - Internet Mana have just vanished from the Election Results website 'Sets' column. Davis must be sneaking ahead. I think Harawira will get there in the end, but it is carnage out there. Carnage.
21.10 - National only getting 62 seats, down from 62 a moment ago. Unfortunately, that's at least 10 too many. Labour finally creep up to 31 seats. 31.
21.12 - Election Results website has half the results in. Nothing has changed. National still just under 49%. Labour just under 24%. Yes, you read that right. Twenty four per cent. Greens and NZ First both under 10%. Conservatives and IMP heading to the dustbin of history.
21.16 - It's 2011 all over again. Only with (thus far) less voting for the left.
21.18 - 55.9% counted and Labour mustering up some courage and edging up to the big bad 24% mark ...
21.22 - Whatever the final result in Te Tai Tokerau, I did say that linking up with Kim Dotcom was a very bad idea. I'm rather sad that I'm being proven right.
21.24 - National currently able to govern alone, assuming the Conservatives don't enjoy a late surge.
21.25 - Labour teeters on the edge at 23.96% of the vote! Come on! You can do it!
21.26 - 24%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Next goal! Matching Phil Goff's 27.48%!!
21.27 - 24.02%! The Long March has started! Onwards to victory!
21.30 - Labour negatively surge to 23.95% A cunning flanking move that will leave National nonplussed!
21.36 - On a more serious note, Labour seem to have moved decisively across the 24% boundary. Yay!! Almost 1 in 4 voting New Zealanders was not totally repelled by Labour!! And National are sinking like a very light, floaty stone, all the way down to 48.67%! This is massive and John Key really must resign. Right now.
21.36 - Some (comparatively) serious movement with the Labour numbers now. 24.19%. Cunliffe might just get enough to hang on.
21.42 - National now definitely trending downwards. Labour moving upwards. Too little, too late, with 75% counted. How could the left have screwed this up so badly?
21.54 - greens building, slowly. They need to get to 12%, or 13% for respectabilty. I think they will make it, because once the conservative wasted vote is taken out, they'll have a bigger share of the leftovers, and specials and so on.
22.07 - Well, at least we can discard the comforting myth of the 'big urban centres coming in late.' Guess what? Whoever swung it for Labour late in the day in 2005 isn't there any more. If they were, they'd have shown up tonight. They've managed to do worse than in 2011 and they had almost everything going in their favour. And. They. Blew. It.
22.14 - If ... IF ... Hone survives in Te Tai Tokerau ... Perhaps he'll realise the link up with the Internet Party was utterly stupid. He could have done it by himself. Perhaps - just perhaps - he might have brought another MP with him. He could have looked to being the main party of the Maori seats. But. He. Also. Blew. It.
22.26 - So, should David Cunliffe resign? I don't care. This isn't about Cunliffe. If every single vote that was lost between 2011 and 2014 was lost because of Cunliffe, it was hardly important. There is a deeper issue here than who fronts at PMQs. Cunliffe is perfectly adequate (as Shearer was perfectly adequate, and Goff was perfectly adequate) but he is leading a party that is intent on self destruction.
Arguing with the leftier left for the last three years over on the Standard, I've become unhappily convinced there is a curious self destructive urge on the left. They are so possessed by hatred of the middleclasses that they have lost sight of the real enemy.
Please, just accept, that middle classes are people too, and Social Democrats are as viable members of the Labour party as Socialists. Stop fighting them. Look where it has got you. 24%. Outstanding.
YOU CAN NOT WIN WITH OUT THE CENTRE.
There are enough sane, decent, middle class, who can be united with the working class to win every election. They are not the enem.
Remember the 99% vs the 1%?
22.35 - Laila Harre gets to oversee the destruction of another party. Three hours ago I had respect for her. Now she's successfully destroyed two leftwing parties.
22.38 - On a more positive note, ACT have only 0.68% of the vote. Over 99% of New Zealanders are not insane.
22.42 - Labour make a late surge to 24.5%!!! It ain't over until the fat lady sings!
22.46 - OMG!! I'd completely forgotten about the contest in Palmerston North, between Iain Lees Galloway and Jono Naylor. It turns out that - against the odds - I've managed to be on the winning side in at least one election in 2014. Normal service will be resumed shortly, I'm sure ... Lees-Galloway won, comfortably, and given the current state of theparty must be wondering if he might be in charge in 2017. It isn't a ery broad, or deep, talent pool.
22.49 - Cunliffe stayed put for ages. He must have been watching the percentages to see if he could survive. What was his 'hang on' figure?????????????????????? Surely not 24.5%??
23.03 Obviously, it was 24.5%.
23.10 - National currently on 61 seats, but that's including (I think) the conservatives in the equation and not including special votes. They might still get pushed down below 50% ... It is a measure of how disappointing this night has been that the idea of National being denied the chance to govern alone feels like a victory.
23.19 - Judith Collins retuned with a majority of almost 5000. The icing on tonight's cake of shit.
23.37 - Bloody Hell. Keys forcing me to crack open the scotch.
23.44 - Actually, with more time to consider the strategic situation, the return of Collins to the front bench is the best outcome we can hope for … Should make 2017 a walk in the (red) park.
23.47 - As if the night could not get any worse, I've jsut realised Mike Hosking has been proven right all down the line. Disaster for Labour. Disaster for Mana. Disaster for the Greens. Triumph for Hosking.
23.50 - Mana polled 5 times as much as United Future. The Conservatives polled EIGHTEEN times more than United Future. guess which party gets an MP?
So I am NOT anticipating a good night. I expect John Key's corrupt, incompetent government to be returned for another three years. This prospect is, of course, terrible. The only thing worse might be if it includes ACT.
Still, every cloud has a silver lining. The next few months should see the slow motion destruction of John Key's reputation and his government's exposure as a bunch of miserable, self-serving conniving liars as Dirty Politics continues to corrode. By 2017, even the most vindictive lefties and stalwart Tories will be desperate to see National put out of its misery.
So let's get on with it ..
7.01 - Nothing too bad so far. Other than Mike Hosking. Which is quite bad enough, really.
7.04 - Will this be a 2005 election, where Labour start miles behind and slowly fights its way back, or like 2008 and and 2011, where Labour starts behind and stays behind?
If it is like the last two, we can put the myth of the mighty Labour vote in South Auckland to bed once and for all - whatever happened in 2005 must have been a once-off.
7.05 - Mike Hosking officially says something stupid, wondering if Labour 'might' increase their share of the vote from 19% of early votes. took him just five minutes. Which is probably an improvement.
7.10 Early numbers show the Nats on 50.9% with 3.5% counted ... Are they about to dip under 50%? that's a pretty quick falling away. A percent off for every percent counted. Long may it continue!
7.13 - Nats on 50%, falling fast. Dare I say they will end up on 40%?
7.16 - A majority of the 7.2% of votes counted reject John Key! There is hope for the nation!
7.19 - The conservatives are hovering about 4.6%. In the interests of democracy, I'd rather the they got 5.1% rather than 4.9%. I hate to see votes wasted, even when they are for ridiculous parties. I'd much prefer to see then get no votes at all, of course.
7.23 - If this is going to be a 2005 election, then National could be in trouble. In 2005, Labour started very far behind (just like tonight) and dragged it back at 1% per 10% counted. If that happens tonight, then Labour will be comfortably above 30%. Of course, that didn't happen in 2008 and 2011, so the odds are it won't happen ...
7.24 - Mike Hosking must have almost choked on that grudging praise for Cunliffe - "A better opponent" than anticipated! Piss off, Mike!
7.29 - National on 48.6, so falling away nicely. But where is it going? Labour seem stuck on 23.5%.
19.31 - 431 people in Epsom have voted for Christine Ranking (thus far)? Oh dear.
19.37 - Mike Hosking is a national embarrassment.
19.42 - Has everyone stopped counting? We've been stuck about 15% for yonks.
19.50 - Just piss off, Mike Hosking, with your inane right-wing, biased unprofessional bleating.
19.56 - Ahahahahahaha. One of Hosking's studio commentators just tried to mention Nick Hager. Hosking immediately tried to cut him off and then terminated the conversation. What a dick.
20.04 - Count, New Zealand!
20.08 - Percentage counted is starting to move again. 18.2% in. Unfortunately, National are still stubbornly above 48%. Have they not read the script?
20.10 - Greens are in ‘Desperate trouble’ according to Hosking. I think I might be complaining, tomorrow, when the hangover clears. They've actually just topped 10%, so building nicely.
20.17 - Insanely, National's vote is going UP as more votes are counted. Only very marginally, from about 48.4% to 48.5% - but it is still abhorrent and wrong and entirely at odds with the Laws of Electoral Physics.
20.20 - Labour might FINALLY be about to trip over 24%. EDIT - That was based on TV1 figures. But the official Election Results website still has them stuck below what TV1 is showing.
20.27 - According to the Election results website, National's share of the vote is climbing. It's now at 48.57. This is MADNESS!!
20.28 - 48.71%.
20.29 - 48.75%
20.32 - 48.81% ... Then 48.79% ... THE TIDE HAS TURNED!!
20.33 - Unfortunately, Labour are also going backwards. 23.70%.
20.34 - National 48.83. Damn it, I said THE TIDE HAS TURNED!! Listen to me, New Zealand.
20.35 - National collapse to 48.75%. Mwahahahahaha! The rout commences! I'm going to stop doing this now ...
20.40 - So, a quarter of the votes have been counted. National are sitting on 48%. Labour are mired on 23.5%. The Greens and NZ First are both about 9-10%. Mana will get 2 MPs on current figures. Ditto Maori. Obviously, that's good news for one party but not for the other. Singletons for ACT and UF.
I'm prediciting the Labour and the Greens may get another 3%. But hopes (or fears) of a grand coalition of the left are looking very faint.
20.43 - And no sooner do I post that than National's share of the vote goes up and Labour's goes down ... 48.84% versus 23.75%. The horror! The horror!
20.49 - National hit 49% of the party vote. (And then immediately drop back to 48.96% .. I feel like I'm being toyed with!)
20.51 - Michelle Boag sounds sane compared to Mike Hosking.
20.52 - National plummet to 48.90%!! They are being driven from the field in total disorder!!
21.00 - We have a third of the vote in now. National are still riding very high at 48.9% of the vote. Labour are sinking, slowly. And everything else is as it was 20 minutes ago, when we had a fifth in. Once we get up to half way, I think we may see a bit of movement in the left vote. Upwards movement, I mean. But by that point, the amount of vote left to effect a change with will be very, very small.
21.04 - Colin Craig doesn't like "the system" - presumably he means MMP. Does he actually believe he would be doing better under First Past The Post?
21.06 - Internet Mana have just vanished from the Election Results website 'Sets' column. Davis must be sneaking ahead. I think Harawira will get there in the end, but it is carnage out there. Carnage.
21.10 - National only getting 62 seats, down from 62 a moment ago. Unfortunately, that's at least 10 too many. Labour finally creep up to 31 seats. 31.
21.12 - Election Results website has half the results in. Nothing has changed. National still just under 49%. Labour just under 24%. Yes, you read that right. Twenty four per cent. Greens and NZ First both under 10%. Conservatives and IMP heading to the dustbin of history.
21.16 - It's 2011 all over again. Only with (thus far) less voting for the left.
21.18 - 55.9% counted and Labour mustering up some courage and edging up to the big bad 24% mark ...
21.22 - Whatever the final result in Te Tai Tokerau, I did say that linking up with Kim Dotcom was a very bad idea. I'm rather sad that I'm being proven right.
21.24 - National currently able to govern alone, assuming the Conservatives don't enjoy a late surge.
21.25 - Labour teeters on the edge at 23.96% of the vote! Come on! You can do it!
21.26 - 24%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Next goal! Matching Phil Goff's 27.48%!!
21.27 - 24.02%! The Long March has started! Onwards to victory!
21.30 - Labour negatively surge to 23.95% A cunning flanking move that will leave National nonplussed!
21.36 - On a more serious note, Labour seem to have moved decisively across the 24% boundary. Yay!! Almost 1 in 4 voting New Zealanders was not totally repelled by Labour!! And National are sinking like a very light, floaty stone, all the way down to 48.67%! This is massive and John Key really must resign. Right now.
21.36 - Some (comparatively) serious movement with the Labour numbers now. 24.19%. Cunliffe might just get enough to hang on.
21.42 - National now definitely trending downwards. Labour moving upwards. Too little, too late, with 75% counted. How could the left have screwed this up so badly?
21.54 - greens building, slowly. They need to get to 12%, or 13% for respectabilty. I think they will make it, because once the conservative wasted vote is taken out, they'll have a bigger share of the leftovers, and specials and so on.
22.07 - Well, at least we can discard the comforting myth of the 'big urban centres coming in late.' Guess what? Whoever swung it for Labour late in the day in 2005 isn't there any more. If they were, they'd have shown up tonight. They've managed to do worse than in 2011 and they had almost everything going in their favour. And. They. Blew. It.
22.14 - If ... IF ... Hone survives in Te Tai Tokerau ... Perhaps he'll realise the link up with the Internet Party was utterly stupid. He could have done it by himself. Perhaps - just perhaps - he might have brought another MP with him. He could have looked to being the main party of the Maori seats. But. He. Also. Blew. It.
22.26 - So, should David Cunliffe resign? I don't care. This isn't about Cunliffe. If every single vote that was lost between 2011 and 2014 was lost because of Cunliffe, it was hardly important. There is a deeper issue here than who fronts at PMQs. Cunliffe is perfectly adequate (as Shearer was perfectly adequate, and Goff was perfectly adequate) but he is leading a party that is intent on self destruction.
Arguing with the leftier left for the last three years over on the Standard, I've become unhappily convinced there is a curious self destructive urge on the left. They are so possessed by hatred of the middleclasses that they have lost sight of the real enemy.
Please, just accept, that middle classes are people too, and Social Democrats are as viable members of the Labour party as Socialists. Stop fighting them. Look where it has got you. 24%. Outstanding.
YOU CAN NOT WIN WITH OUT THE CENTRE.
There are enough sane, decent, middle class, who can be united with the working class to win every election. They are not the enem.
Remember the 99% vs the 1%?
22.35 - Laila Harre gets to oversee the destruction of another party. Three hours ago I had respect for her. Now she's successfully destroyed two leftwing parties.
22.38 - On a more positive note, ACT have only 0.68% of the vote. Over 99% of New Zealanders are not insane.
22.42 - Labour make a late surge to 24.5%!!! It ain't over until the fat lady sings!
22.46 - OMG!! I'd completely forgotten about the contest in Palmerston North, between Iain Lees Galloway and Jono Naylor. It turns out that - against the odds - I've managed to be on the winning side in at least one election in 2014. Normal service will be resumed shortly, I'm sure ... Lees-Galloway won, comfortably, and given the current state of theparty must be wondering if he might be in charge in 2017. It isn't a ery broad, or deep, talent pool.
22.49 - Cunliffe stayed put for ages. He must have been watching the percentages to see if he could survive. What was his 'hang on' figure?????????????????????? Surely not 24.5%??
23.03 Obviously, it was 24.5%.
23.10 - National currently on 61 seats, but that's including (I think) the conservatives in the equation and not including special votes. They might still get pushed down below 50% ... It is a measure of how disappointing this night has been that the idea of National being denied the chance to govern alone feels like a victory.
23.19 - Judith Collins retuned with a majority of almost 5000. The icing on tonight's cake of shit.
23.37 - Bloody Hell. Keys forcing me to crack open the scotch.
23.44 - Actually, with more time to consider the strategic situation, the return of Collins to the front bench is the best outcome we can hope for … Should make 2017 a walk in the (red) park.
23.47 - As if the night could not get any worse, I've jsut realised Mike Hosking has been proven right all down the line. Disaster for Labour. Disaster for Mana. Disaster for the Greens. Triumph for Hosking.
23.50 - Mana polled 5 times as much as United Future. The Conservatives polled EIGHTEEN times more than United Future. guess which party gets an MP?
Friday, 19 September 2014
Prediction
Following my discovery that other people are allowed to vote in this election thing that is going on - and here I was thinking all the fuss was about me and my vote and nothing else - I have decided the rest of you should vote in the following way:
Which, if it comes to pass, will give us:
Which gives the Labour Green bloc 50 MPs, and the National-ACT bloc 55.
So it comes down, preditably, to Which way NZ First will jump. I would assume he would go with National as the largest party - but Winston has been making sufficient noises to make me wonder if he would sooner play the role of constructive opposition, allowing him to make a lot of noise and exert influence while not being embroiled in what I suspect will be a massively unpopular government.
Obviously, the exclusion of the Conservative Party will be significant. If they do manage to scrape in at 5%, that changes everything, utterly. Even though I dislike everything about them, from Colin Craig' silly alliterative name to their policies, I would actually prefer them to do that - I don't like wasted votes. Ideally, the 5% threshold should go. If New Zealanders want to vote for silly parties, then they can have a silly parliament. In the meantime, I don't like the idea of people's views being excluded, even if I disagree with them, because of a stupid rule.
UF and Maori Party are also up for grabs, I think - they might tend to National but I think they could support a Labour lead goverment. And if Mana can't be partof a Labour lead government - a very short sighted decision by Cunliffe - they can perhaps still play a positive role through confidence and supply arrangements - a position they might enjoy as much as Peters would.
You notice I don't mention the Internet Party. If Harre makes it into parliament, I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet Party simple dissolves itself into Mana. Dotcom will not find it useful for his continued efforts to avoid justice.
So, sadly, it looks like tomorrow will result in a period of anarchy, possibly leading to the Zombie Apocalypse.
- Nat 43%
- Labour 27.5%
- Greens 13%
- NZF 7%
- Con 4%
- IMP 2% and holding Te Tai Tokerau
- Maori 1.5% but holding two Maori seats
- ACT, UF <1 but="" each="" electorates="" holding="" li="">
Which, if it comes to pass, will give us:
- National 54
- Labour 34
- Greens 16
- NZ First 9
- Mana 3
- Maori 2
- ACT 1
- UF 1
Which gives the Labour Green bloc 50 MPs, and the National-ACT bloc 55.
So it comes down, preditably, to Which way NZ First will jump. I would assume he would go with National as the largest party - but Winston has been making sufficient noises to make me wonder if he would sooner play the role of constructive opposition, allowing him to make a lot of noise and exert influence while not being embroiled in what I suspect will be a massively unpopular government.
Obviously, the exclusion of the Conservative Party will be significant. If they do manage to scrape in at 5%, that changes everything, utterly. Even though I dislike everything about them, from Colin Craig' silly alliterative name to their policies, I would actually prefer them to do that - I don't like wasted votes. Ideally, the 5% threshold should go. If New Zealanders want to vote for silly parties, then they can have a silly parliament. In the meantime, I don't like the idea of people's views being excluded, even if I disagree with them, because of a stupid rule.
UF and Maori Party are also up for grabs, I think - they might tend to National but I think they could support a Labour lead goverment. And if Mana can't be partof a Labour lead government - a very short sighted decision by Cunliffe - they can perhaps still play a positive role through confidence and supply arrangements - a position they might enjoy as much as Peters would.
You notice I don't mention the Internet Party. If Harre makes it into parliament, I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet Party simple dissolves itself into Mana. Dotcom will not find it useful for his continued efforts to avoid justice.
So, sadly, it looks like tomorrow will result in a period of anarchy, possibly leading to the Zombie Apocalypse.
Decision
I am pleased to announce that, after much consideration, I will be casting my electorate vote in Palmerston North for Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.
Deciding on my party vote proved much harder.
In 2002 and 2005, I voted for the Alliance - the first time in the hope of putting a couple of left wing MPs into parliament if Harre won Waitakere electorate (she didn't), and the second time out of sheer perversity, as I abhorred the direction the Labour Party was taking.
In 2008, I refused to cast a meaningful vote at all, defacing my ballot paper. At the time, Labour's Free trade Agreement with China was enraging me; and no party that would support a government that endorsed it would receive my vote.
In 2011, I voted Mana, as I agreed with Harawira's relentless focus on child poverty. I hope the new party might muster enough support to put two MPs into parliament and I wanted to signal my dis-satisfaction with the continued vacillations of the main leftwing parties.
This year, the situation was complicated by the Mana-Internet Party link up. Put bluntly, Kim Dotcom is not one of us. He is not on our side. Everything about him - the flamboyant lifestyle, the massive mansion, the transparent attempts to buy influence, jars hideously with the core Mana message of eradicating child poverty. This man has no interest in that. He is interested only in himself, and everything he touches is tainted by the contact. I tried to ignore all this and focus on the positives - Harawira, Sykes, Minto, Harre ... but it wasn't enough. Sorry guys. I told you at the time it was a bad idea.
Labour appealed, largely out of a sense of pity and a defiant urge to do the opposite of whatever Key, Ede, Slater and the rest of the corrupt Dirty Politics scum-bags wanted me to do. They didn't want me to vote Labour, so it seemed like a good idea to do that. Also, I felt that they deserved every iota of support going after the Dirty Politics revelations. What better way to signal opposition for everything John Key has come to represent, the corruption, the venality, the gross indecency masquerading as honest comment, the glib, superficial and deeply cynical and nasty attitude, than by voting for the party most likely to replace him? But Labour proved impossible to love. They are far better at mutilating their chances of victory than National. From Cunliffe's performances in the debates, which consisted of waving his hands about weirdly and trying to talk over Key (when the sensible strategy would have been to stand back, shake his head and look prime ministerial) to the hopelessly clueless decision to announce the promising New Zealand Inc policy on the same fucking day as Dotcom's big reveal, everything they have done has been clueless. Hell, given three years notice of how Key would attack the (sane and sensible) Capital gains Tax policy, they were still flat-footed. So a vote for Labour would be endorsing that inebriated stumbling performance. ANd I couldn't do that.
Which left me with the Greens. Who I have never voted for before, here or in Britain - largely because I do prioritise social issues over environmental ones (thought they are all social issues in the end). But this year they offered the sanest policy I have ever heard in New Zealand politics - a new top rate of tax targeting income over $140,000. And they wanted to use the money from it to tackle child poverty. And on top of that, they have run the most sure-footed campaign of any of the left-wing parties.
So in 2014 I'll be giving my party vote to the Greens.
So that's that. Russel and Meteria for joint PMs. You can all calm down, I have decided ... What, you mean the rest of you lot get a vote as well? What sort of fool system is this?
Deciding on my party vote proved much harder.
In 2002 and 2005, I voted for the Alliance - the first time in the hope of putting a couple of left wing MPs into parliament if Harre won Waitakere electorate (she didn't), and the second time out of sheer perversity, as I abhorred the direction the Labour Party was taking.
In 2008, I refused to cast a meaningful vote at all, defacing my ballot paper. At the time, Labour's Free trade Agreement with China was enraging me; and no party that would support a government that endorsed it would receive my vote.
In 2011, I voted Mana, as I agreed with Harawira's relentless focus on child poverty. I hope the new party might muster enough support to put two MPs into parliament and I wanted to signal my dis-satisfaction with the continued vacillations of the main leftwing parties.
This year, the situation was complicated by the Mana-Internet Party link up. Put bluntly, Kim Dotcom is not one of us. He is not on our side. Everything about him - the flamboyant lifestyle, the massive mansion, the transparent attempts to buy influence, jars hideously with the core Mana message of eradicating child poverty. This man has no interest in that. He is interested only in himself, and everything he touches is tainted by the contact. I tried to ignore all this and focus on the positives - Harawira, Sykes, Minto, Harre ... but it wasn't enough. Sorry guys. I told you at the time it was a bad idea.
Labour appealed, largely out of a sense of pity and a defiant urge to do the opposite of whatever Key, Ede, Slater and the rest of the corrupt Dirty Politics scum-bags wanted me to do. They didn't want me to vote Labour, so it seemed like a good idea to do that. Also, I felt that they deserved every iota of support going after the Dirty Politics revelations. What better way to signal opposition for everything John Key has come to represent, the corruption, the venality, the gross indecency masquerading as honest comment, the glib, superficial and deeply cynical and nasty attitude, than by voting for the party most likely to replace him? But Labour proved impossible to love. They are far better at mutilating their chances of victory than National. From Cunliffe's performances in the debates, which consisted of waving his hands about weirdly and trying to talk over Key (when the sensible strategy would have been to stand back, shake his head and look prime ministerial) to the hopelessly clueless decision to announce the promising New Zealand Inc policy on the same fucking day as Dotcom's big reveal, everything they have done has been clueless. Hell, given three years notice of how Key would attack the (sane and sensible) Capital gains Tax policy, they were still flat-footed. So a vote for Labour would be endorsing that inebriated stumbling performance. ANd I couldn't do that.
Which left me with the Greens. Who I have never voted for before, here or in Britain - largely because I do prioritise social issues over environmental ones (thought they are all social issues in the end). But this year they offered the sanest policy I have ever heard in New Zealand politics - a new top rate of tax targeting income over $140,000. And they wanted to use the money from it to tackle child poverty. And on top of that, they have run the most sure-footed campaign of any of the left-wing parties.
So in 2014 I'll be giving my party vote to the Greens.
So that's that. Russel and Meteria for joint PMs. You can all calm down, I have decided ... What, you mean the rest of you lot get a vote as well? What sort of fool system is this?
Friday, 18 July 2014
Labour Green coalition: more venting + general spleen aimed at the Labour caucus
Another round of atrocious polling for Labour, and another round of desperate, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we only need a swing of about 4% to FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!"
It used to be just, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!" Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.
And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!
But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored. And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.
(The idea of actually getting out there with whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)
This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First. And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.
(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely. I kid you not.)
But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be themost likely least unlikely way of Labour achieving some sort of victory in September.
It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.
Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’
The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.
Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.
The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.
Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...
With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.
Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting - a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.
After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.
Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for - a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.
It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.
Idiots and scum the lot of them.
It used to be just, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!" Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.
And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!
But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored. And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.
(The idea of actually getting out there with whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)
This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First. And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.
(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely. I kid you not.)
But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be the
It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.
Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’
The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.
Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.
The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.
Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...
With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.
Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting - a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.
After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.
Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for - a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.
It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.
Idiots and scum the lot of them.
Monday, 28 April 2014
On the left
The strength of the left has been its ability to tear itself to pieces more effectively than the right could ever do. This is seen all across the world, not just in New Zealand. I think acceptance of sometimes quite divergent opinion within a unified party is what we need to sort out before we can hope to take the fight to the right. In Britain in the 80s, Thatcherism triumphed because the left was split between Labour and the SDP. Because it was a FPTP system, Thatcher was able to win massive majorities on a declining share of the vote.
Obviously, things are a bit better under MMP, but I disagree with the suggestion that the fragmented nature of the left is not really a problem. If nothing else, it makes welding a coalition together more fraught; it also creates the problem of ideological dilution - there are some elements (and voters) of NZ First that are natural left territory, but the party itself is tainted with right wing madness and special interest pleading as to make it toxic; and there is the issue of perception - even if the dog is not being wagged by multiple tails - that the minor parties are getting undue influence and issue of stability will always be a factor for some voters; and the risk of unwise connections, as exampled by the recent dalliance of Mana and the Internet Party.
So I feel very disappointed when I see people continuing to rave about the supposed malign influence of Mallard-Goff-King, because a) I don't actually believe it, b) these are some of our most effective and recognisable performers, and c) it shows we still haven't learned the lesson and learned to accept the idea that people will have somewhat different ideas of what it means to be Labour, or the best ways to achieve leftwing goals.
This isn't to say the fault is the minor parties on the left; Mana is looking to Dotcom because it has been systematically excluded by Labour. and the Greens were blocked from coalition throughout the Clark years. To win, Labour needs to accept all strains of reasonable and sane leftism, and all strains of reasonable and sane leftism should be looking to form links with the larger party. Perhaps formal unification is impossible - but more co-operation and development of joint policy is essential. This means Middle New Zealand has to accept that Mana and the Greens are not swivel eyed eco-warriors and racial agitators; and the left needs to accept that Middle New Zealand is also part of Labour.
Obviously, things are a bit better under MMP, but I disagree with the suggestion that the fragmented nature of the left is not really a problem. If nothing else, it makes welding a coalition together more fraught; it also creates the problem of ideological dilution - there are some elements (and voters) of NZ First that are natural left territory, but the party itself is tainted with right wing madness and special interest pleading as to make it toxic; and there is the issue of perception - even if the dog is not being wagged by multiple tails - that the minor parties are getting undue influence and issue of stability will always be a factor for some voters; and the risk of unwise connections, as exampled by the recent dalliance of Mana and the Internet Party.
So I feel very disappointed when I see people continuing to rave about the supposed malign influence of Mallard-Goff-King, because a) I don't actually believe it, b) these are some of our most effective and recognisable performers, and c) it shows we still haven't learned the lesson and learned to accept the idea that people will have somewhat different ideas of what it means to be Labour, or the best ways to achieve leftwing goals.
This isn't to say the fault is the minor parties on the left; Mana is looking to Dotcom because it has been systematically excluded by Labour. and the Greens were blocked from coalition throughout the Clark years. To win, Labour needs to accept all strains of reasonable and sane leftism, and all strains of reasonable and sane leftism should be looking to form links with the larger party. Perhaps formal unification is impossible - but more co-operation and development of joint policy is essential. This means Middle New Zealand has to accept that Mana and the Greens are not swivel eyed eco-warriors and racial agitators; and the left needs to accept that Middle New Zealand is also part of Labour.
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Shane Gones
So, Shane Jones is quitting politics. The reasons given, according to Polity, are because he wants the Labour Party to embrace a wide range of opinions, and that that too many people have opinions he doesn't agree with, like forming alliances with the Greens.
Not really the open-minded and accommodating attitude you’d expect in a ‘broad church.’ Jones wanted to be included in the ‘broad church’ but wasn’t willing to extend that privilege to others.
His decision to depart now is so badly timed it stinks of deliberate wrecking tactics. Once again all the talk is about Labour’s troubles, not about Labour’s policies. Thank you, Shane, thank you very much.
All he needed to do was announce he would be standing down at the election. Leaving six months before hand, in a blaze of publicity and self-justification, really seems designed to draw as much attention to himself, and his exit, as possible. I bet he farts just before leaving a room as well.
Jones seems to be of the opinion that Labour uniting with the Greens would alienate Labour's core working class vote. Reality check, Shane. I think being out of power - again - will alienate more working class voters than an alliance with the Greens would. Labour are teetering on the edge of total irrelevance as it is, and losing for a third time isn't much of a recipe for success. Labour need to win to actually make themselves important again, because otherwise they will simply fade into oblivion. Which would suit National down to the ground, of course.
Some people - like Jones - fail to understand how hopelessly Labour are performing. 30%. THIRTY PERCENT. One in three of the electorate identify with the party that is supposed to represent the interests of the average New Zealander. Instead, almost half of them - HALF - vote for the party that shamelessly pursues the interests of the richest sliver of New Zeland society. It's insane.
The idea that the Labour Party would need the Greens to make up a 15% gap on National is shocking. Even more shocking is the denial and arrogance of Shane "I helped get us into the mess" Jones about the necessity of reaching out to the greens, and hoping they are a lot more forgiving and understanding than Labour deserve.
Not really the open-minded and accommodating attitude you’d expect in a ‘broad church.’ Jones wanted to be included in the ‘broad church’ but wasn’t willing to extend that privilege to others.
His decision to depart now is so badly timed it stinks of deliberate wrecking tactics. Once again all the talk is about Labour’s troubles, not about Labour’s policies. Thank you, Shane, thank you very much.
All he needed to do was announce he would be standing down at the election. Leaving six months before hand, in a blaze of publicity and self-justification, really seems designed to draw as much attention to himself, and his exit, as possible. I bet he farts just before leaving a room as well.
Jones seems to be of the opinion that Labour uniting with the Greens would alienate Labour's core working class vote. Reality check, Shane. I think being out of power - again - will alienate more working class voters than an alliance with the Greens would. Labour are teetering on the edge of total irrelevance as it is, and losing for a third time isn't much of a recipe for success. Labour need to win to actually make themselves important again, because otherwise they will simply fade into oblivion. Which would suit National down to the ground, of course.
Some people - like Jones - fail to understand how hopelessly Labour are performing. 30%. THIRTY PERCENT. One in three of the electorate identify with the party that is supposed to represent the interests of the average New Zealander. Instead, almost half of them - HALF - vote for the party that shamelessly pursues the interests of the richest sliver of New Zeland society. It's insane.
The idea that the Labour Party would need the Greens to make up a 15% gap on National is shocking. Even more shocking is the denial and arrogance of Shane "I helped get us into the mess" Jones about the necessity of reaching out to the greens, and hoping they are a lot more forgiving and understanding than Labour deserve.
Monday, 14 April 2014
Entrails of chickens
In the good old days, if you wanted to foretell the future you disembowelled a chicken and tried to make predictions based on the shape of its liver and whatnot. Now, we have polling companies, which is possibly more scientific but a lot less fun, even for the chicken.
I don't know if Roy Morgan are trying to Do Their Bit by recycling polls, but they seem to be producing the same one over and over again. You could basically pick any poll released over the last 6 months and the same questions will almost certainly apply:
The Greens are victims of a phenomenon whereby they make every correct tactical decision, resulting in strategic ruination. They have, time after time, done the right thing - arranging confidence and supply agreements, conducting grown up negotiations and the like - and it has got them no-where.
I don't know if Roy Morgan are trying to Do Their Bit by recycling polls, but they seem to be producing the same one over and over again. You could basically pick any poll released over the last 6 months and the same questions will almost certainly apply:
- Does Labour get more than 33%?
- Does the 'Labour-Green bloc' (a curious entity that exists only in the mind of desperate lefties) beat National?
- Does NZ First get more than 5%?
Last week's poll was no exception, with Labour polling a deadly 32% - though given the way the party has been flirting with the sub-30 Fatal Boundary, that is something to be pleased about, the 'Labour-Green bloc' just out polling National and Winston looking chipper on 5.5%.
Given every poll is pretty much irrelevant in itself, what can we say about the longer term blah blah blah?
Next to nothing, that has not been said a thousand times. Labour are dead in the water, but may enjoy a slight improvement when the campaign proper gets under way. Meanwhile, there is the continual talk of the 'Labour-Green bloc.' Think about the history of the 'Labour-Green bloc' for a moment. 1999 - excluded from the coalition. 2002 - excluded from the coalition. 2005 - excluded from the coalition.
That's not a 'bloc.'
History shows the Greens have been perpetually excluded in favour of NZ First and United Future. Only once - 1999 - did Labour turn left and coalesce with the Alliance. Which in itself might serve as a warning to the Greens.
The Greens are victims of a phenomenon whereby they make every correct tactical decision, resulting in strategic ruination. They have, time after time, done the right thing - arranging confidence and supply agreements, conducting grown up negotiations and the like - and it has got them no-where.
Meanwhile, a man-child like Peters throws his toys and stamps his foot and is rewarded, time and again, by fresh shiny baubles.
What is the likelihood of this happening again? Pretty good and pretty much impossible, is my less than helpful answer.
Pretty good because Labour appear quite happy with the idea of shutting out the Greens if possible. Cunliffe's recent comments about Labour trying to maximise its vote suggest a degree of hubris - he appears to be intent on eating up enough of the Greens to get Labour within a Winston of victory, without having to draw on the Greens.
Saying the Greens might not be the first party addressed in coalition talks is a clear signal they know Winston is going to have some pretty hefty demands and will want dibs on ministerial folios for himself and his hangers-on. One of his demmands might even be not working with the Greens - more baubles for him. hence Cunliffe's comments about maximising the vote.
Pretty much impossible because, I suspect, such a campaign will be unsuccessful. Labour can no hope to gobble up 10% of the Green vote. They aren't appealing enough a brand, and the dreams of Standardistas for Cunliffe leading them above the 40% mark have proven to be more than a little bit fanciful. The party is stuck where it was a year ago, two years ago ... Even seizing 5% of the Green vote - a difficult proposition - will probably leave a putative Labour-NZ First government short. And Winston has previously refused to work with the Greens.
And, crucially, he has no need to now. He can always 'Heed the will of the people' and go with National
Which leaves us us no further forward, really. Last week's Roy Morgan puts the 'Labour-Green bloc' and National pretty much neck on neck (if you add the Green's neck onto Labour's) and Winston as the kingmaker. Wo'dathunkedit?
National will have more baubles to offer Winston and his hangers on, as Labour will already have given a basketful to the Greens.
Robertson or Ardern in 2017?
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
More musings on the left and such like
Over on The Standard, a poster called Karol has suggested that “Currently, to govern in NZ the Left requires a strong , democratic and solidly left wing Labour Party”.
I’m not sure I agree with this idea.
To govern, you need to win the left and the centre. For a ‘solidly leftwing Labour Party’ to do that would take a leader of uncommon talent and probably a special moment in history. With all due respect to Shearer and Cunliffe, neither of them is a leader of uncommon talent.
Under MMP, the extreme left is always going to be flaky – eternally squabbling about obscure points of doctrine, protesting about too much ground being given to the centre (and overlooking the fact that they have the ground to give in the first place). Look how many leftwing minor parties have come and gone already – the Alliance and the various parties that constituted it originally, the Progressives, Mana …
Now the Greens seem to be colonising that space, which is brave, or perhaps foolhardy. How long before the environmentalist core and the anarchist faction start to get uncomfortable with all this neo-statist policy?
If the Greens can keep their disparate elements happy, then there is no need for Labour to move left – they will only be taking votes off the Greens, while losing votes in the centre.
Look at the differences in the housing policy. They both want to build the same amount of houses, but the Greens want to do them as state houses and Labour wants to do them to sell. Both policies have something to recommend them, and both will deliver a massive economic boost and help get working class people working again. The Green policy appeals to me more because it delivers a socially just solution. The Labour policy appeals to middle class voters because it seems more fiscally responsible and it will relieve pressure (slightly) on house prices.
(Don’t dismiss or mock middle class concerns, by the way – they are legitimate and stem from real issues. If you want to win, you need to carry these people, not alienate them.)
What I imagine would happen if the Greens and Labour were negotiating their coalition housing policy is that they’d agree to build 300,000 houses, with a mix of social and private ownership – which also makes sense on street level, as a mixture of state and private housing makes for a healthier community.
So everyone wins, or loses just a little (which amounts to the same thing) – apart from National.
I dunno. Sometimes I wake up and I really want Labour to lurch to the far left and to Hell with the centre.
Most of the time, I imagine the view from that moral high ground would look remarkably similar to the view from the opposition benches.
I’m not sure I agree with this idea.
To govern, you need to win the left and the centre. For a ‘solidly leftwing Labour Party’ to do that would take a leader of uncommon talent and probably a special moment in history. With all due respect to Shearer and Cunliffe, neither of them is a leader of uncommon talent.
Under MMP, the extreme left is always going to be flaky – eternally squabbling about obscure points of doctrine, protesting about too much ground being given to the centre (and overlooking the fact that they have the ground to give in the first place). Look how many leftwing minor parties have come and gone already – the Alliance and the various parties that constituted it originally, the Progressives, Mana …
Now the Greens seem to be colonising that space, which is brave, or perhaps foolhardy. How long before the environmentalist core and the anarchist faction start to get uncomfortable with all this neo-statist policy?
If the Greens can keep their disparate elements happy, then there is no need for Labour to move left – they will only be taking votes off the Greens, while losing votes in the centre.
Look at the differences in the housing policy. They both want to build the same amount of houses, but the Greens want to do them as state houses and Labour wants to do them to sell. Both policies have something to recommend them, and both will deliver a massive economic boost and help get working class people working again. The Green policy appeals to me more because it delivers a socially just solution. The Labour policy appeals to middle class voters because it seems more fiscally responsible and it will relieve pressure (slightly) on house prices.
(Don’t dismiss or mock middle class concerns, by the way – they are legitimate and stem from real issues. If you want to win, you need to carry these people, not alienate them.)
What I imagine would happen if the Greens and Labour were negotiating their coalition housing policy is that they’d agree to build 300,000 houses, with a mix of social and private ownership – which also makes sense on street level, as a mixture of state and private housing makes for a healthier community.
So everyone wins, or loses just a little (which amounts to the same thing) – apart from National.
I dunno. Sometimes I wake up and I really want Labour to lurch to the far left and to Hell with the centre.
Most of the time, I imagine the view from that moral high ground would look remarkably similar to the view from the opposition benches.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Wither now for the left?
So, the polls for both the NZ Labour Party and the Greens are up, much to the disgust of the Cunliffistas.
Question is, has the Greens and Labour combined vote reached its ceiling?
I suspect so, as far as appeal to the leftie-environmental section of the electorate is concerned. There just aren't enough socially minded and/or environmentally concerned people out there.
So to get the extra 3-5% needed to make 2014 safe and respectable (because a shoddy multi-partner coalition will just make National's return in 2017 more likely) there are three options:
a) Make more people socially minded and/or environmentally concerned. Though seductive, this is a very big ask. With due respect to the respective caucuses of Greens and Labour, I don't think there is anyone there with the intelligence, vision and charisma to make this happen. Even if there was, it will be in the face of entrenched interests and big money.
b) Broaden the church. This one sticks in the throat of the Cunliffite pseudo-left (pseudo as Cunliffe isn't much of a leftie, and his clique is more a personality cult than a band of clear eyed ideological warriors) because it involves appealing to People Who Aren't Like Them, and thus admitting they're an unpopular minority, even within the current Labour party. It also means adulterating some important policies. Tony Blair's triumph in 1997 shows the benefits and risks of this strategy, in about equal measure - you can win, but it might not be worth it if you push to far with the soul-selling stuff.
c) Lie and tell the electorate there is plenty of jam for everyone, them send them to the gulag the morning after election day. It is worth noting that something like this strategy has been used very effectively by the NZ right, though with 'empty future with no prospects' replacing gulag.
Question is, has the Greens and Labour combined vote reached its ceiling?
I suspect so, as far as appeal to the leftie-environmental section of the electorate is concerned. There just aren't enough socially minded and/or environmentally concerned people out there.
So to get the extra 3-5% needed to make 2014 safe and respectable (because a shoddy multi-partner coalition will just make National's return in 2017 more likely) there are three options:
a) Make more people socially minded and/or environmentally concerned. Though seductive, this is a very big ask. With due respect to the respective caucuses of Greens and Labour, I don't think there is anyone there with the intelligence, vision and charisma to make this happen. Even if there was, it will be in the face of entrenched interests and big money.
b) Broaden the church. This one sticks in the throat of the Cunliffite pseudo-left (pseudo as Cunliffe isn't much of a leftie, and his clique is more a personality cult than a band of clear eyed ideological warriors) because it involves appealing to People Who Aren't Like Them, and thus admitting they're an unpopular minority, even within the current Labour party. It also means adulterating some important policies. Tony Blair's triumph in 1997 shows the benefits and risks of this strategy, in about equal measure - you can win, but it might not be worth it if you push to far with the soul-selling stuff.
c) Lie and tell the electorate there is plenty of jam for everyone, them send them to the gulag the morning after election day. It is worth noting that something like this strategy has been used very effectively by the NZ right, though with 'empty future with no prospects' replacing gulag.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
More on the Labour / Green alliance fantasy
Over on the Standrad, there has been another of the apparently endless series of posts extolling the likelihood of some red-green coalition. The latest one is courtesy of James Henderson:
It's pretty pathetic, really, to see the Labour Party that once stood for the best progressive instincts of the country, whining about how it can still scrabble to the line with a considerable dose of support from minor parties and professional factionalists.
Labour have to learn to stand on their own two feet if they are to be a viable governing party. They can’t rely on the Green to toddle along with 15% of the vote and push them over - or anywhere close to - the line. The Greens have their own interests and their own voters’ interests to think of. They are not just a slightly dishevelled, pot smoking extension of the Labour Party. They can – and will – do business with National if need be. Labour will lose support if they are constantly chasing the elusive Green Alliance. They will look feeble, disgust their supporters and find themselves going no-where if they try. Stop dreaming about Red-Green alliances, if the Red team can’t get itself into a more useful position, it won’t be going anywhere near the Government benches.
What can Labour do? On studying the talent available, very little. The best team is in the top jobs, shuffling them about would make a minute difference, but there isn’t very much they can do unless they face up to the reality that vaguely aping National’s policies with a few populist, opportunistic postures, isn’t going to get them anywhere.
I suspect, bitterly, that Labour is simply hoping Key gets bored and goes away before the next election – for if Labour’s talent pool is pretty shallow, National’s – without Key – is a sort of anti-pool.
I reckon that if Labour and the Greens combined get more votes than National next election, they’ll be able to find enough support parties to govern. Vice versa too.
During the last term, National averaged an 11% lead over Lab+Green. This term 3%. Since June, less than 1%.Look, I'm not saying this is an impossible outcome. I am saying it is far fetched, and the left seem to be pinning far too much hope on it.
It's pretty pathetic, really, to see the Labour Party that once stood for the best progressive instincts of the country, whining about how it can still scrabble to the line with a considerable dose of support from minor parties and professional factionalists.
Labour have to learn to stand on their own two feet if they are to be a viable governing party. They can’t rely on the Green to toddle along with 15% of the vote and push them over - or anywhere close to - the line. The Greens have their own interests and their own voters’ interests to think of. They are not just a slightly dishevelled, pot smoking extension of the Labour Party. They can – and will – do business with National if need be. Labour will lose support if they are constantly chasing the elusive Green Alliance. They will look feeble, disgust their supporters and find themselves going no-where if they try. Stop dreaming about Red-Green alliances, if the Red team can’t get itself into a more useful position, it won’t be going anywhere near the Government benches.
What can Labour do? On studying the talent available, very little. The best team is in the top jobs, shuffling them about would make a minute difference, but there isn’t very much they can do unless they face up to the reality that vaguely aping National’s policies with a few populist, opportunistic postures, isn’t going to get them anywhere.
I suspect, bitterly, that Labour is simply hoping Key gets bored and goes away before the next election – for if Labour’s talent pool is pretty shallow, National’s – without Key – is a sort of anti-pool.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
For reasons cryptical, I can't log in directly, and can only access this blog by replying on an existing thread. So this is the thread ...
-
It looks like David Irving has been treated very unfairly. He's been tried and convicted and jailed (for 400 days, as he points out seve...
-
Someone cited two alleged climate experts, messrs Cliff Harris and Randy Mann in an I had argument recently. The graph below was referred ...