Posts by Mr Mark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Joe Wylie,
Yep. For so many years, Christchurch was Wellington's political twin. During the Clark Government, Dunedin was overwhelmingly Labour and Left-leaning, while the Capital and the Garden City were strongly so.
But then in 2008, a huge swing to the Right in Christchurch, while the swing in Wellington City was, first and foremost, from Labour-to-Green. And then, just to cap things off, an even greater swing to National in Christchurch in the immediate post-Quake Election of 2011.
-
I might just add that New Plymouth has always been a highly-conservative, Right-leaning town. An oil, gas and dairy-farming town. National's Party-Vote % in NP almost always exceeds its nationwide %, while the Greens are usually weaker in the seat than in the Country as a whole. When there's a nationwide swing away from Labour, therefore, (as, of course, there has been over recent Elections) it's always far more likely to head towards National and NZ First in NP than to an Urban liberal Party like the Greens.
In stark contrast, Wellington City (like Dunedin and South Auckland) remains well to the Left of the rest of New Zealand. National's poor Party-Vote performance in Wellington Central has little if anything to do with Robertson himself and everything to do with the demographics and arguably (as a very loyal Wellingtonian) the unusually progressive values of the City as a whole. The Left vote, for instance, has held up just as well in Annette King's Rongotai seat. Indeed, National experienced a weaker % point increase there than in WC.
From Labour's viewpoint, however, a fall is a fall regardless of the destination. Robertson loses almost 5000, Little just under 3000.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Which, in the context of the present discussion, really doesn't mean much at all, Andrew.
The emphasis is not on the Left Bloc vote but on Labour's vote. Essentially, the argument that Labour has suffered an appalling, way-above-average Party-Vote decline in Little's New Plymouth (with the associated notion that Little is therefore some sort of hapless bozo who needs looking after because he can't quite manage things himself).
The idea that an MP/Candidate is solely (or even largely) responsible for Party-Vote movement in their Electorate is highly debatable. But if Robertson's entourage is absolutely determined to argue that then their (your) favoured leader is responsible for contributing almost 5000 lost Party-Votes to Labour's slump over the last few Elections, while Little's responsible for a little under 3000. Simple as that.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Russell Brown,
Russell, you quote Parker-enthusiast and long-time Right faction apparatchik, Phil Quin, to the effect that Labour has suffered way-above-average Party-Vote losses in Little's New Plymouth over the last few Elections.
While I respect Quin's tactical nous (along with me, he was the only one to accurately predict the 2010 Mana By-Election result, for instance), I think it's fair to say he does tend to marshal the most damning argument against his political adversaries that he can possibly manage - without worrying too much about how appropriate his figures / methodologies are. His use here of the two-party swing is just a little bit iffy as far as I'm concerned, it disguises as much as it reveals.
I'd suggest the more appropriate measure is simply a straightforward comparative look at Labour's Party-Vote decline (both in raw number and percentages) over the last 3 Elections.
Warning:This doesn't make particularly pleasant reading for Robertson acolytes.
Labour Party-Vote New Zealand 2008-14
2008.. 34.0% .........2014.. 25.1% ....... minus 8.9Labour Party-Vote New Plymouth (Little) 2008-14
2008.. 31.4% ..........2014.. 21.2% ....... minus 10.2Labour Party-Vote Wellington Central (Robertson) 2008-14
2008.. 34.6% ..........2014.. 23.8% ........ minus 10.8Labour's Party-Vote fell by 4938 votes in Robertson's Wellington Central, compared to a decline of just 2954 votes in Little's New Plymouth.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Russell Brown,
And the idea that people didn't vote Labour because it proposed to gradually raise the superannuation age to 67 is just preposterous
Is it ? And yet that is precisely the anecdotal evidence that's come through from Labour Party activists in the immediate post-Election period. You'll find scattered comments to that effect throughout the local blogosphere in late September/early October.
Let's just take the example of PAS regular, Stephen Judd, who argued: "....the biggest negatives I got canvassing apart from DC were the super age policy (which is hard for me to defend because I don't agree with it either) and inchoate moaning about the man-ban thing...."
Although the overall poll results on raising Super are fairly ambiguous, strongly-held opposition to the policy clearly exists among a section of (particularly blue-collar/low income) Labour voters. And I can't say I blame them.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Grant McDougall,
He'll be parachuted into Island Bay or Mt Roskill or one of the other ones currently held by someone that ought to have retired as an MP by now and is preventing young blood entering the party
Island Bay ceased to exist as an Electorate quite some time ago. You'll be thinking of Annette King's Rongotai (essentially the old Island Bay and Miramar seats combined). I suggested Rongotai (for Little) a couple of days ago (elsewhere on the blogosphere) and I think someone may have said the same earlier on this thread. It's certainly one of the Country's great Left strongholds.
And, as warren mac points out, Little does live in Island Bay.
On t'other hand, (as in Robertson's neighbouring Wellington Central) there's a pretty hefty Green Party-Vote and leader Russel Norman's been standing there for at least the last 2 Elections. So, that might just complicate things.
Another possibility would be Mt Albert. Kill two birds with one stone, as it were.
Quite possible, though, that he'll remain a List MP. The public may hold a somewhat negative attitude toward List MPs but, in the end, it didn't do Brash too much harm.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Andrew Geddis,
That is precisely what I'm suggesting, big fella.
How does 225 South African Krugerrands (in unmarked notes) sound ? Thought as much. So can I take it there'll be no more anti-Little diatribes for the foreseeable future ?
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to WH,
A good deal of what you say is true, WH. But I'd also point out that Labour under Kinnock had already loudly / publicly challenged Militant Tendency, including the expulsion of members and preventing Militant-associated MPs from being re-selected for the 1992 Election . People often forget that Kinnock and Gould took Labour through a pretty rigorous modernisation process through the 80s and early 90s.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Russell Brown,
Yeah, I'm not convinced that First Preferences mean all that much, Russell.
Mahuta's Caucus supporters went entirely to Little in the second round, as did a clear majority of her supporters among the Party membership. Parker's supporters in both the Caucus and Party were relatively evenly-divided, in both cases opting for Robertson by fairly small margins.
In terms of the all-important Third Round, I really don't think you can call a 55/45 split "a commanding head-to-head margin" Let's remember that in 2013, Robertson beat Cunliffe by 15 points in the Caucus vote.
I'm not saying it's an ideal situation. As mentioned, I grimaced on seeing the breakdowns. But Little clearly does have a good deal of support (yes, a minority, but a very large 44/45% minority) both within the caucus and among the Party membership, together with overwhelming support from one of the Party's key constituencies.
Not ideal, but not a tragedy either. And I'm concerned that the more you or Chris Trotter or Andrew Geddis throw around words like "disaster" and "tragedy" the more it plays into the hands of the Nats and their MSM acolytes.
-
Hard News: News from home ..., in reply to Joe Wylie,
Joe Wylie ...already rejected by the voters of New Plymouth
Grant McDougall He can't even win New Plymouth against a National backbencher
Oh, do me a favour ! New Plymouth has always been a highly conservative, Right-leaning town. Duynhoven managed to build-up a significant personal majority only when Labour and the Left were in the ascendant. By 2008, he'd lost the seat to National.
It goes without saying that the electoral fortunes of Labour/the Left are at an all-time low. Expecting Little to win an historically-Right-leaning seat in these circumstances is silly (or disingenuous). Why not leave that kind of spin to National and the MSM rather than contributing to it - presumably as a result of sour grapes.