Sunday, 21 September 2014

ROUT!

Triumphant! John Key leads National to its greatest victory since 1951, routing the forces of the Left in the process.
 
 
Progressive New Zealanders,
we have some very serious
thinking to do.


This posting is exclusive to the Bowalley Road blogsite.

59 comments:

Tim said...

How can so many New Zealanders vote for:

- asset sales
- farm and residential sell off to foreigners
- charter schools
- tax cuts for the wealthy & greater inequality
- intensification of dairying destroying rivers & lakes
- secret trade agreements
- interception of our communications
- politics run like PR.

I don't know what we have become now, there no longer seems anything special about NZ - 30 years of neo-liberalism has had a devastating effect. And as more unbelievable information comes out NZ'ers reaction is to move to the right.

Imagine what's going to happen as climate change issues increase.

michael said...

According to dr Norman it was because Hager's book was titled "Dirty Politics", leading the voters to believe all politicians were dirty!

So, there we have it. The good doctor has figured it. It was down to a book title. I would have thought the thinking might have been a tad more serious.

jh said...

True Chris. Firstly they need to recognise that they get in the way of the aspirations of the working class.

Anonymous said...

a victory for the weather gods?

K NZ said...

According to Elections NZ:
3,096,247 voters enrolled
2,112,522 votes counted
= 68.23%

jh said...


The poll shows 62 percent of voters want tighter restrictions on immigration, while only 35 percent say leave it.


Mary Wilson on Winston's "tsunami of migrants" hyperbole: "should we even be reporting him".
NZIER calls for a larger population.
Professor Paul Spoonley "we need their skills"
There's only one point of view in the media and a concensus amongst progressives to interpret immigration as a good. They cannot agree with the Savings Working Group, Treasury, Reserve Bank and support the knee capping of the scope of inquiry of the NZ Productivity Commission. They are therefore unable to interact in a real world.
The progressives are the useful fools of the property owning class having crowded out any voice that says foreigners affect the well being of the members of a nation such as (NZ, Australia, Canada). The public aren't so silly.
National will go with Act (good cop, bad cop). Act represent free trade across border in land and lifestyle (of course National will have to give them something!)

Michael Wynd said...

Chris, your Waitakere Man has spoken and he gave his party vote to National. He voted for a good electorate MP but gave his vote to Key. Labour has the issue that the toxic effect of Clark is not dealt with. I voted National but gave money to Kevin Davis. Labour has not learned the lessons of 2008 or 2011 and now is a rump party of special interests. It is leaderless and directionless.
The Green vote is at its limits of 10% The Left banked on Nicky Hagar and Kim Dot Com for victory and it backfired as it deserved to. I think you ought to push for Stuart Nash as leader and to shift back the party to the Centre. There will be a reckoning for the left and those who threw everything at Key. It will be nasty and fun to watch.

Anonymous said...

I did think of suggesting, for National's New Zealand, a rip off of Simon and Garfunkel starting 'I'd rather be a poodle than a man'. But poodles are good watch dogs, housetrained, and only bite children when severely provoked; so are scarcely appropriate.

Kerry Nitz said...

For electorates by party that won them:

Party Enrolled Votes Turnout
NAT 1845994 1298236 70,33%
LAB 1123905 732915 65,21%
MAOR 34447 18062 52,43%
UFNZ 44410 32705 73,64%

Kerry Nitz said...

Some more stats:
Electorate Enrolled Votes Turnout
Total 3096247 2112522 68,23%
Auckland Central 35264 21681 61,48%
Bay of Plenty 45347 33044 72,87%
Botany 46935 29635 63,14%
Christchurch Central 43463 29064 66,87%
Christchurch East 42384 28598 67,47%
Clutha-Southland 43408 30861 71,10%
Coromandel 47500 34346 72,31%
Dunedin North 43442 30419 70,02%
Dunedin South 45952 34628 75,36%
East Coast 45996 31934 69,43%
East Coast Bays 43248 29076 67,23%
Epsom 47491 30804 64,86%
Hamilton East 44841 30343 67,67%
Hamilton West 44584 29999 67,29%
Helensville 42500 29836 70,20%
Hunua 44133 31728 71,89%
Hutt South 47711 34699 72,73%
Ilam 44298 30643 69,17%
Invercargill 44616 31490 70,58%
Kaikōura 45592 33291 73,02%
Kelston 41650 25714 61,74%
Mana 44758 32169 71,87%
Māngere 40454 22848 56,48%
Manukau East 39760 22583 56,80%
Manurewa 40142 22830 56,87%
Maungakiekie 45264 28927 63,91%
Mt Albert 45569 30407 66,73%
Mt Roskill 45558 29034 63,73%
Napier 45020 32905 73,09%
Nelson 47358 34460 72,76%
New Lynn 44263 28897 65,28%
New Plymouth 48225 34245 71,01%
North Shore 48530 33378 68,78%
Northcote 46071 30720 66,68%
Northland 44454 31870 71,69%
Ōhāriu 44410 32705 73,64%
Ōtaki 46326 34989 75,53%
Pakuranga 45772 30899 67,51%
Palmerston North 42701 30566 71,58%
Papakura 45238 30011 66,34%
Port Hills 48700 35343 72,57%
Rangitata 46174 33605 72,78%
Rangitīkei 42564 31261 73,44%
Rimutaka 45912 33067 72,02%
Rodney 47707 35337 74,07%
Rongotai 46033 32788 71,23%
Rotorua 42919 30456 70,96%
Selwyn 42111 31674 75,22%
Tāmaki 45221 31786 70,29%
Taranaki-King Country 41726 30211 72,40%
Taupō 45867 32615 71,11%
Tauranga 46449 33420 71,95%
Te Atatū 43959 28831 65,59%
Tukituki 44968 32457 72,18%
Upper Harbour 44809 28356 63,28%
Waikato 45142 31819 70,49%
Waimakariri 44004 32461 73,77%
Wairarapa 46487 34150 73,46%
Waitaki 48328 35915 74,32%
Wellington Central 45473 30829 67,80%
West Coast-Tasman 44725 32835 73,42%
Whanganui 45882 32554 70,95%
Whangarei 46673 33689 72,18%
Wigram 39903 26577 66,60%
Hauraki-Waikato 33730 17563 52,07%
Ikaroa-Rāwhiti 33678 18820 55,88%
Tāmaki Makaurau 34557 17012 49,23%
Te Tai Hauāuru 31703 17288 54,53%
Te Tai Tokerau 33627 18661 55,49%
Te Tai Tonga 32541 17004 52,25%
Waiariki 34447 18062 52,43%

Kerry Nitz said...

From Statistics NZ site:

Voter turnout of enrolled voters at general elections
1981–2011

Election year Voter turnout (percent)
1981 91,4
1984 93,7
1987 89,1
1990 85,2
1993 85,2
1996 88,3
1999 84,8
2002 77,0
2005 80,9
2008 79,5
2011 74,2

Source: Electoral Commission
(excuse the commas, my laptop is set up for German)

So a big drop from 74.2 to 68.2%

The Flying Tortoise said...

As much as I loath the thought of another Key government, anything is better than Cunliffe.
He should be gone by lunchtime.
Labour must have a new leader, they have eleven hundred days to the next election...

Dave said...

We certainly do Chris it could be nine or twelve year before we see a progressive government

Guerilla Surgeon said...

You're not wrong. Obviously those 800,000 people who don't vote still didn't vote. Although I must say for the first time in 30 years or so a Labour Party activist rang me up and asked if I needed a lift to the ballot box. I guess that's a start. And getting some relevant policies out there that will get these people to vote might help also. But again, politics in this country are cyclical, and it's almost certain that Labour will get in next time. Simply because people will be tired of National.

Anonymous said...

Were the seeds sown for this Labour Party 30 Years ago by the Lange -Douglas Government when members left in droves and they dismantled the Union Movement as we knew it... for people to never really return?

Jigsaw said...

You could start with a change of label-progressive - yeah right!

Dialey said...

I can't help wondering about the association of words in the minds of the public. We're stuck with the negative connotations that come from right and left divide: right = righteous, with right on my side etc; left = left behind, left-handed (hangovers of sinister). "National" has the advantage of a party name that inspires belief that they stand for the national interest purely because of the word, not for their policies. "Labour" brings to mind hard labour, punishment, and nasty things like sweat and callouses. Has Labour become an anachronism, a historical movement that doesn't resonate with a high tech society. There is much in a word, as those who develop branding know. Maybe we on the left need to think hard about what the subliminal message we are sending really is.

JanM said...

That is very true - some soul-searching, some research and some serious reflection.

Simon Cohen said...

Who wrote this.

"THE CRUDE POLITICAL GAMBIT of Kelvin Davis and his supporters in Te Tai Tokerau has fallen flat. His plans to knock Internet-Mana out of the electoral race have been revealed and the Maori voters of the North will punish him severely. Not only for his confrontational and abusive rhetoric, but also for the rank ingratitude and disloyalty he has displayed toward Labour. The rest of the country can only shake their heads in wonder at the strategic stupidity of the man."

"It was at this point that Hone Harawira, demonstrating all the strategic and tactical fighting skills of his Ngapuhi ancestors, reached out to Dotcom with an offer that neither party could refuse. Availing themselves of the same sections of the Electoral Act that validated the Alliance’s participation in the 1996, 1999 and 2002 General Elections, Dotcom and Harawira brought their parties together in a way that significantly boosted their chances of becoming critical players in the post-20 September period of political bargaining"

"And maybe, Sue, that is the real reason behind your rejection of Kim Dotcom’s money. That it might make Mana into something more than a mere pin-prick in the shins of power. That with the funding Mr Dotcom will undoubtedly make available to the alliance, Mana’s Annette Sykes will have a better than even chance of knocking Te Ururoa Flavell – and with him the Maori Party – out of Parliament. That with the Dotcom dollars behind him, Hone Harawira will be able to bring into the House of Representatives your erstwhile comrade, John Minto. (Not since the days of Harry Holland will our Parliament have welcomed a more revolutionary MP!) Isn’t that the unspoken explanation behind all your many party entrances and exits over the years, Sue? That, to remain pure, your parties must relinquish any prospect of political success?"

"But the Greens problems pale into insignificance when placed alongside those of the National Party. The appointment of Harré as Internet Party Leader changes the electoral equation significantly. No matter how hard they try to characterise it as such, IMP is no longer a “dotty” addition to the electoral mix – not with Harré in charge. John Key and his advisers must now recalibrate their predictions to accommodate a left-wing challenger that could take as much as 4-6 percent of the Party Vote."

Anonymous said...

Unexplainable
Orwellian
Despair inducing

manfred said...

Let's just clarify what we're talking about here.

Most left wingers should be clear - if we are to make change in the here and now, we are here to do the following three things:

1. We are here to make a better fist of capitalism. The Right in most countries are too ideological to regulate and intervene in such a way that capitalism works as efficiently as possible. So the Left must do this.

2. We are here to ensure social justice, that is delivering outcomes where no one lives in poverty. This requires creative and sensible solutions. There are sectors of our society that have been left behind for too long.

3. We are here to make sure democracy continues to be a force which mitigates the power of Capital. This campaign has shown us that the mighty forces of Capital have a power far beyond the strength of mere individuals.

Some leftists mix up their belief in the unsustainability of a society organised around the profit motive with their desire for reforms.

Yes, capitalism is ultimately unsustainable but anyone with experience of human psychology knows that the human race is light years from a full understanding of this.

It is nihilistic to say that we should not have reforms and therefore wait for people's welfare to get so bad that revolution comes.

This is too much of a gamble to make as we have seen from Russia in 1917 one hand instituting a totalitarian system and some parts of the US on the other where people have little education and gravitate towards extremist movements.

A total breakdown in social order has never lead to socialism - look at the Middle East. There are many examples of this.

A well fed, well housed, well educated and confident society is more likely to consider enlightened ideas.

I would rather take a gamble on that society making the right choice, than making a gamble on chaos.

The Veteran said...

and the winner ..... New Zealand.

and the losers ..... all those who beat a path to the crimdotcon's mansion.

Brendon Harre said...

Chris do you have the total turnout figures, how many votes National and Labour got compared to last election? Channel One last night said it was way down, in the 60% range I think. On a another website a blogger said National got 94% of its 2011 vote (in actual numbers) while Labour only got 85%.

If this is true then Rhonwyn Newson at the NZ Herald is correct theat Nicky Hager should have read 'Dirty Politics' Chapter one about Simon Lusk political strategy regarding negative campaigning. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11328812

" There are a few propositions about negative campaigning that are worth knowing about. It lowers turnout, favours right more than left as the right continue to turnout......"

The question is was National's rout based on kiwis retreating from democracy?

Victor said...

Whatever path the centre-left now takes, it must refute its opponents' claims that they're better at running an economy.

Until it takes this need for refutation seriously, the centre-left's spending plans will always be dismissed as, at best, "nice to haves" and, at worst, as the sour fruit of the "politics of envy".

Unfortunately, refutation will be no easy task, given how neo-liberal balderdash has become the default mode of public debate.

A good start, however, would be to stop praising John Key for his skill in weathering the storms of the GFC, when, in fact, he failed to take advantage of optimal conditions for economic future-proofing and growth.

Debbie Sullivan said...

the stats that Kerry has provided appear to bear out the theory outlined in Nicky Hagers book but compounding that I think is the adage "its the economy stupid"....fear of change will keep the majority where they are until events directly impact them. Selling a vision of an improved future as opposed to a safe present is too hard a sell to an electorate fed personal advancement over societal good for the past 30 years...the most depressing thing is this message is all many have ever known. When it all turns to custard as it surely will, be it the economy, financial system, the enviroment or a combination of, then that swinging middle vote will turn to the progressive left to save them. Not vision but self interest will make converts of them.

timfrankarchaeology said...

I know the label "progressive" is in vogue at the moment, but I find it unfortunate. Do those people really think we are on eternal path of progress? What sort of worldview does that spell out? I thought some of the existentialist crises of the past century have moved people away from the notion of progress, but here we have it popping up again. I'd rather listen to the musings of an "Old New Zealand" than a "progressive".

A O said...

Really disappointed, no longer proud to be a Kiwi - this country isn't what I thought it was.

At least my local guy (Lees-Galloway) got back in, huge relief...didn't need to inflict John Key Mach 11 on the rest of NZ.

s36e175 said...

+1 for Debbie Sullivan's comment!

Anonymous said...

Yeah,Progressive is a wee bit self congratulatory,no?

Btw Chris, still see Dotcom as a 'Merry Prankster'? Perhaps if the prank was 'hand National a historic victory', then yes.

You forgot a basic rule of politics - patriotism trumps all. Most voters saw Dotcom as a foul foreign influence on OUR political system. So they voted the only way that would guarentee to be rid of him , even if they had to hold their nose whike so doing. Don't believe me? Look at them votes!

I'm suprised so many in the left didn't see this, but thought that they could use Dotcom at no cost.

Victor said...

timfrankarcheology

I agree with you. I'm anything but "progressive".

Brendan McNeill said...

Chris

I have just watched a ‘Sunday’ program on the decline of Whanganui. It is being reduced to a town of superannuitants and beneficiaries; residents dependent upon taxpayers living in other New Zealand’s cities.

What if anything should be done?

Should Whanganui be left to a slow and gradual decline, with families living elsewhere being forced to subsidize its existence?

It strikes me that this is something of a picture of the problem faced by Labour. Like Whanganui It is a party in terminal decline, largely because for a decade or more it has focused upon issues that are core to its members, but peripheral to the rest of New Zealand.

As a result, it has become irrelevant to 75% of Kiwis.

The needs of Whanganui and Labour are very similar. A new direction energized by entrepreneurship, innovation and a desire to serve real world people; a sober recognition that more of the same myopic focus on gender equity and identity politics is no longer a viable option.

The difference between Whanganui and Labour, is that the former is not populated by individuals committed to their pet ideology, people who would rather preside over the destruction of ‘their party’, than give an inch to reformers.

I conclude therefore that there is greater hope for the economic development of Whanganui than for the political prospects of the once proud New Zealand Labour party.

David said...

I'm happy to blame it all on a Fascist population voting for a Fascist leader. Watertight argument. National voters have lost their right to complain.

Anonymous said...

I can't help wondering about the association of words in the minds of the public. We're stuck with the negative connotations that come from right and left divide: right = righteous, with right on my side etc; left = left behind, left-handed (hangovers of sinister).

Disagree. What sort of thing leaps to mind when you hear the words "right-wing"? Scary men in military uniforms and moustaches? Religious crackpots? Tub-thumping populists? By contrast, the words left wing conjures up images of bearded intellectuals drinking coffee in Bohemian cafes.

I've long had a theory that the Right hates being called the Right. Hence its efforts to reinvent its image.

Richard Christie said...

Need to do some thinking?

Sadly, the result is a brutally honest reflection of what we, NZ society, have become; of what we value, or rather, of what we have ceased to value.

This is what happens after 30 years of relentless laissez faire indoctrination and the dismantling of public institutions and discourse.

markus said...

(1) "John Key leads National to its greatest victory since 1951."

In some senses, yes. But I should point out that the Nats may very well end up around the same percentage they received at the last Election. Special Votes should see them drop half a percentage point, perhaps a little more, if the pattern of the last 3 Elections is anything to go by.

(2) A few commenters above have talked about turnout. I'm pretty sure TVNZ got it wrong on Election Night. They said 67.7% - which would be well down on 2011. But they forgot about the Specials. By my calculations turnout is 76.4% - higher than 2011, lower than 2008.

Both National and NZF are well up (in terms of raw number of votes), the Greens are mildly down (about - 3000), Labour down about - 25,000.

(3) Victor's argument that: the centre-left "must refute its opponents' claims that they're better at running an economy" is spot-on, in my opinion. This goes to the very heart of why the Left lost so badly.

markus said...

I might add that the low turnout (compared to previous decades) also pours a certain amount of cold water on the idea of National enjoying its greatest victory since 1951.

As I mentioned on sub-zero politics (sorry, a bit of 'blog-whoring' going on here), once the Final Results are in, I'd expect National's vote to comprise about 36% of Enrolled Voters and just 33% of Eligible Voters.

When euphoric Tories start tossing around the idea that almost half of NZ adults cast their vote for National, we would do well to remind them that the real figure is, in fact, a little less than a third.

Debbie Sullivan said...

progressive..favouring social reform as opposed to conservative ...averse to change...or would you prefer the term regressive?? remember,there is no going back on your decision.

jh said...

Re apologising for being a man. Bryce Edwards (The Nation)
"“Absolutely, there is a wider disconnect between what he said and what the wider public think. Among the Labour Party and liberal left in NZ there are two ideologies that are really important to them and that's this ideology of identity politics and rape culture. Political threat lists or identity politics is where what you are (man or women, gay your ethnicity) is more important than what you say and do. Rape culture holds that collectively there is this misogynist attitude amongst males that enables others to rape and commit crime."

jh said...

David H 2.1.1
28 May 2014 at 8:03 am

Cunliffe on Brekkie TV3 this morning finally got the message out that the immigration thing was a beat up. And all started because Blinglish lost the chapter on housing.

karol 2.1.1.1
28 May 2014 at 9:11 am

Glad to hear it. Can’t find the video of it online.
David H 2.1.1.1.1
28 May 2014 at 9:58 am

Here you go Karol.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Labour-not-anti-immigration—Cunliffe/tabid/370/articleID/346076/Default.aspx
karol 2.1.1.1.1.1
28 May 2014 at 10:04 am

Thanks, yes. Just found and watched it. Good interview – though his focus was on everyone owning their own home – nothing on state housing and affordable private rentals.

Anonymous said...

When I worked in a hotel someone hit a woman in the face. All the bouncers (Epitaph Riders) took to him outside. One of them lamented afterwards: "you couldn't get a hit on him because everyone was having a go".

Guerilla Surgeon said...

On the contrary Brendan, Labour has concentrated on the wants of the middle class rather than the needs of the working class. Which is why it has become irrelevant, as many of its natural constituents now don't vote, because they have no one to vote for. And as for being forced to subsidise – that's what taxes are for Brendan. And your middle-class get subsidised just as much as anyone. To listen to farmers these days you'd think that they embraced the lack of subsidy way back when instead of being dragged kicking and screaming – and they still get subsidised to a certain extent – so there. :-)

Patricia said...

If they say history repeats itself and Labour had the worst defeat since 1922, when the economy was booming, then we have to wait 4 more terms before we get another Labour Government unless of course there is another World War or a real economic collapse.
I don't think Cunliffe should be replaced. The man worked so hard and you can't keep blaming one man for Labour's defeat. Mind you it was Key who won the election, certainly not policies because National has none.

Fern said...

Special declaration votes still to be counted are estimated at 293,130 (12.2% of total votes). This includes an estimated 38,500 overseas votes.
The total estimated votes (those counted on election night plus estimated special votes to be counted) is 2,405,652.
Voter turnout for the 2014 General Election is estimated to be 77.04% of those enrolled as at 5pm Friday 19 September. This compares with a final 74.21% turnout of those enrolled in 2011.
Source:
http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/preliminary-results-2014-general-election

Unknown said...

I think the argument is "Did National win or the left loose".
I see it as a dance where National's partner was up dirty dancing while Labour's partners weren't talking: "you called me a red-neck bigot" etc.

Jigsaw said...

Interesting range of reasons given here for the left's decline but really no one seems to have mentioned the fact that so many standing on the left have nothing whatever in common with working class people and it shows-Cunliffe looked jolly but still somewhat uncomfortable as did the people around him that he ran into. I think one of the strangest things was Debbie Sullivan on this site proclaiming that National would after the election be out of office for at least the next decade......how's that for getting it wrong.
I also wonder how much the 'terror raids' scare in Oz helped national.

Nick said...

My day is no darker today than yesterday, but it is constantly becoming darker by the erosion by stealth of my civil liberties. Of the democratic principle. Because it is such a slow process we dont see it until it is too late. How to pass that message to the people?

Victor said...

It seems to me that a crucial question facing the left half of the political spectrum is whether it needs a dominating, umbrella party to represent it, much as National represents the right.

If so, then the the kind of "broad church" currently being talked up by David Shearer has obvious merit and would probably involve tacking to the centre.

But, if not, Labour will need to work out what kind of niche party it wants to be and how this would mesh with and complement the appeal of potential coalition partners, such as the Greens.

Should Labour be a party of the traditional Left, embedded in the union movement?

Should it be a "rainbow party"?

Should it be Waitakere Man's party, tribally Labour but with a vaguely centre-right policy mix ?

Should it be a party of centre-left economists and associated metropolitan intellectuals, willing to go to the stake for the sublime rationality of CGT?

And there will be other options.

But, to my mind, a niche party can't be more than (say) two of the above.

Debbie Sullivan said...

Ah Jigsaw I see your still fitting the pieces together where you want them irrespective of the shape...are you perhaps an ESOL student? there is a world of difference between the words could and would, though Im happy to admit the result stunned me (though Im far from alone in that), particularly in Christchurch.

Tim Mallory said...

Well, we're still a Democracy and we got the Govt. we deserve!

Robert M said...

My own view is that the Labour Party remains far too dominated by the feminist and gay lobbies and its general direction remains determined by the Auckland University Common Room and the ageing group one baby boomers, born before 1955 and largely shaped by anti Vietnam war activism. Also I view the Clark victories and reflecting reaction against a divided National Pary, which essentially disliked and misled Jenny Shipley and didn't see Bill English as a leader. Victory against Shipley or English who were being betrayed by half the party as was Brash, wasn't quiet the achievement, many thought. Under Key the Nats are relatively united and although devoid of talent or insight appear like ordinary NZers.
The other significant talent is half the new Asian Citizens and under 27s don't vote. To me this suggests the belief that new immigrants would maintain liberalism seems questionable as the back country and working class white elements are those most likely to vote.

jh said...

John Key is on Cambell Live. He is saying he wants NZrs to be positive about NZ's potential to be wealthy. Thats why he "wants people to come here" and "wants people to invest in NZ", "be more multicultural".
How is that going to make us "wealthy". It will make developers and investors wealthy. The problem is Campbell is a "progressive of the internationalist tradition" and (therefore) programmed to ignore any negative consequences of immigration. Campbell needs to read Treasury Paper 14-10.
There's your rout! Sickening.

markus said...

Thanks for that, Fern.

I calculated my 76.4% figure from the Electoral Commission's www.electionresults.govt.nz site. On the "overall status" page, they set out the Total votes already counted and then "Special Votes 254,630".

Obviously, they didn't include the 38,500 Overseas Votes in that figure (a good way to mislead people - they made no mention at all that there were extra overseas votes on top of that. I think most readers would assume, as I did, that the 254,630 Specials included the overseas votes).

General point remains, though - Turnout was up on 2011, down on 2008.

There are still plenty of commentators on the blogosphere who seem convinced (probably influenced by the TVNZ mistake on Election Night)that Turnout has fallen to an even more miserable level than 2011.

Kat said...

@Victor

"A good start, however, would be to stop praising John Key for his skill in weathering the storms of the GFC, when, in fact, he failed to take advantage of optimal conditions for economic future-proofing and growth".

Couldn't agree more!! David did poorly there along with the "it's my turn now John" subliminal but grating message.

Labour has to re work the presentation of the CGT, Compulsory savings and raising the retirement age. These should not be major election time planks.

Labour has to quickly sort out any leadership nonsense and start formulating a plan that constantly keeps Nationals lack of economic policy in the voters face.

Attack mode for 2017 should start asap.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Maybe one of the things that Labour needs to be is united. Perhaps if the caucus stopped white anting whichever leader it didn't agree with, which has been going on for years now - and accepted the will of the party and got behind who was ever in charge they might begin to get somewhere.

JanM said...

Labour wound up preaching to the choir, in the main because they mostly spoke in whole sentences and didn't descend into blokiness. Would probably have done better if they'd kept the awful Shane Jones, indeed, would probably be running the country by now if they'd made him their leader. There is too high a price to pay for some things.
And in answer to jh on the subject of John Campbell, I think he was just fishing with a very long line - watch this space!

Loz said...

The figure of turnout as a basis of enrollment deserves some attention attention.

Election's NZ estimated (based on NZ's 2013 census) that about 3,379,000 kiwis should be on the roll. With half a million New Zealander's living in Australia at the time of that census, it would be fair to think the actual number of enrollments could be much higher than the electoral estimate.

The preliminary results show National gaining support from only 29% of the voting population. If the remaining votes follow the same distribution as election night the part will win no more than 34% of the eligible vote.

The government is not as popular as it appears but what passes as a left wing in NZ politics has no connection with the general population at all. Labour and the Greens respectively only gained only 15% & 6% support of eligible voters while more that 99% of us wanted nothing to do with Internet / Mana.

Like everyone else – I agree that Victor is bang on.

Jigsaw said...

Debbie-in that context could or would are both so far off the mark as to be laughable. National never looked like being decimated in the way you described-unless of course you just chatter with those who broadly share your point of view. Your ESOL comment is beneath contempt.

Debbie Sullivan said...

Your right Jigsaw..an ESOL student would understand the implications of both could and would and nor would they misattribute the use of one one when the other was used...I apologise wholeheartedly to ESOL students everywhere.

Anonymous said...

I am disgusted about the election result. I have one consolation. I was NOT born here, and have never adopted citizenship, and NEVER will, after yet another shocking display of how superficial, shallow and short sighted too many born and bred in this country are!!!

I am PROUD to NOT be a so-called "New Zealander", thank you, I did NOT vote for Key and Nats!