Given that this was a campaign blog, you will notice that posts ceased after the September 2005 election.
With NZ politico's of varying affiliation clogging up the blogosphere with contributions that vary from incisive to inane, I haven't seen too much point in carrying on with another standard-type blog.
Currently thinking about some different options and plan to have something up and running on this site in early March 2006.
Michael.
Labour Vote Trend: Labour Held v. Non Labour Held 
Some extremely interesting trends emerge on analysis of the Election night results.
The primary trend is of increased political polarisation. Simply put, National areas moved to National in proportionately higher numbers than elsewhere, and Labour areas moved away from Labour in proportionately lower numbers than elsewhere.
The overall result saw Labour fall marginally from 41.26% in 2002, to 40.74% on Election night this year, a small swing away from Labour of 1.26%. The polarisation trend can be observed by looking at the Labour vote across Auckland electorates and seeing how this trend was distributed.
The graph above shows three things:
- The flat yellow line in the middle represents the 1.26% fall in the Labour vote across the country.
- The pink line represents Party vote results in Labour-held Auckland seats.
- The blue line represents Party vote results in non-Labour held Auckland seats.
The picture is simple, in all non Labour-held seats, where the Labour vote was weaker to begin with, the swing against Labour has been bigger than the nationwide average. The percentage decrease in the Labour vote in these seats varied between 5.8% (North Shore) and 15.15% (Rodney). Pakuranga was 6.84%.
However, in most Labour held seats, the picture is reversed. In all but two of these seats, the Labour vote held up better than the nationwide average. In four (Mangere, Auckland Central, Manurewa, and Mt Albert) the Labour Party vote actually increased.
The stark differences in Party vote increase/decrease between Labour-held and non Labour-held seats in Auckland confirms the theory of increased political polarisation that has been bandied around in reference to the rural/urban divide.
The trend is also evident within the Pakuranga results.
Our overall Party vote decrease was 6.84%. For administrative purposes the Returning Officer breaks down the booths in the electorate into the geographic sub-groups of Bucklands Beach (worst for Labour historically), Howick (middling), and Pakuranga (best for Labour historically). When the results are broken down into these groups we see:
- Labour vote in Howick down by 14.39%
- Labour vote in Bucklands Beach down by 8.41%
- Labour vote in Pakuranga down by just .79%
If the Pakuranga segment is broken down further to remove the Farm Cove and Sunnyhill booths which are very strong for National, we are left with what we call 'Pakuranga South', the area that has had far and away the strongest Labour vote historically. In this area our vote actually climbed by .91% compared to the nationwide dip of 1.26%. The strongest Labour booths such as Anchorage Park (+2.6%), Elm Park (+4.88%), Pakuranga Heights (+6.02%), and Riverhills (+11.56%) saw good Labour gains.
So internally, the pattern matches the picture across Auckland - National areas solidifying for National, Labour areas solidifying for Labour. Polarisation.
And here's an example of what won this tightest of tight elections for Labour:
Turnout Increase in Pakuranga:
Bucklands Beach (7143-7617) - 6.64%
Howick (7304-7645) - 4.67%
Pakuranga (12649-14110) - 11.55%
Hard graft and on the ground organisation to get out the Labour vote, that's what won it. Despite the Presidential style campaign, flash billboards, blogs, and multi-media gimmicks, it was on the ground campaigning in the end.
There's a pile of campaign analysis out there in the blogosphere, and I'll have some on the Pakuranga campaign tomorrow once I've finished the number crunching (some very interesting trends emerging already).
In the meantime, the good bits, and not so good bits from an extremely long, tough campaign in Pakuranga:
Lows
- The poll blues. Whatever anyone says, and whatever you know about long-term trends, margins of errror and the time frames involved, candidates still live and die from poll to poll. Given this, one's mental health took on something of a schitzophrenic quality over this camapign.
- Long days and nights away from home.
- Absolute exhaustion in the last couple of weeks. Literally falling asleep in the middle of phone calls is a good sign that you need a bit more rest.
- The odd socially disfunctional jerk who insists on turning any political discussion into a personal slanging match.
- War wounds. Campaign helpers torn to bits by dogs, strange and horrific blood blisters after hoarding expeditions gone wrong...
Highs
- The door-knocking campaign. Almost universally well-received, and worth the effort when we align the areas we intensively canvassed, with our results.
- Campaign Committee meetings. I had what every good campaign needs - a tight, focussed campaign committee that put together and implemented a sound plan. Thanks Angela, Jeff, Patrick, and John.
- This Blog. Proved to be a good campaign tool, and created more local interest than I had envisaged.
- The debates. The first was an out and out butting of heads with Judith Collins, and I was very happy with the outcome. The second was a lower key, quite fun affair that also went well.
- Assisting local residents. Campaigning brings you into contact with local residents who sometimes need a hand dealing with Council/Govt dept etc... I enjoyed the opportunity to help out in these kinds of cases.
- Campaign blitz days. Hitting targetted parts of the electorate with a group of activists. The best day was when we convereged on the Ennis Ave area in late June, and leafletted and doorknocked the place to within an inch of it's life. We got our best vote increase at the local booth.
- The final burst. That final two week burst of campaigning was exhilirating. We knew that the election could go either way, and that everything we did counted. Alot of coffee and Berocca kept me going.
- The people who spontaneously came out of the woodwork to help. Folk like Louise who helped scrutineer on the day, and Christine whose female presence while giving out education policy information outside schools, ensured that I didn't look like a paedophile.
- The night. What an absolute spectacle. I knew we were going to win when we pulled even, and then the next set of electorate graphics showed Labour strongholds Mangere, Manukau East, and Manurewa with 60-70% of votes still to count.
Tomorrow... the local numbers!
This will be my last post before Election Day, and if if can communicate just one thing, I hope it is that every vote counts on Saturday.
It is absolutely clear that this is the tightest election race in a generation, and that the choices are very stark.
On Saturday New Zealanders can choose the short-term silver bullet of tax cuts, or we can choose to invest in our shared future.
Over the past six years we have worked hard to build a strong economy that serves all New Zealanders, not just the wealthy few. We have strong growth, low unemployment, decreasing child poverty, and we have implemented a range of positive measures such as the re-establishment of apprenticeships that put us in a good position to prosper in the future.
We have also developed into a proud, confident nation. I have never been so proud to be a Kiwi or a member of the NZ Labour Party as I was when the US & UK illegally and immorally invaded Iraq, and we stood firm on our principles and refused to participate.
This Labour government has not been perfect, but I genuinely believe that we have honoured the commitments we made in 1999 and 2002, and that we have a positive plan for the future. Policies such as interest-free student loans, more modern apprentices, smaller class sizes for 5 year olds, and the expanded rates rebate scheme represent a comprehensive programme to invest in our future, and to share the benefits of our national wealth.
On the local front I have enjoyed the Pakuranga campaign immensely. I can honestly say that I have never worked so hard in my life. We have done everything that we could have to connect with the voters of the electorate, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to meet so many local residents face to face.
For the assistance and support offered by my wonderful campaign team of Patrick, Angela, Jeff, and John, I am incredibely grateful. For my wife's forbearance, patience, and support over the past 9 months of campaigning I am also indebted.
On Saturday I simply ask that Pakuranga voters think carefully about the sort of country we want to build, and look closely at the policies on offer. Any local residents who may find it difficult to reach a polling booth on the day are welcome to contact me for assistance.
Best of luck everyone. See you on the other side!
From Dawn till dusk and beyond, this week is manic.
Early morning bus stop visits begin each day, followed by getting out the ever huge mountain of deliviries, doorknocking, the odd community group visit, leafleting of parents outside local schools, and 1001 little tasks to keep the campaign ticking over.
This week also saw Pakuranga's only two real campaign debates.
The first, on Monday night was organised by the combined local Catholic Parishes. This was the bigger of the two, with roughly 100 people in attendance. Each speaker had to address 4 topics, and the floor was then opened for questions. National was represented by Judith Collins, and from her very first response on abortion which she used to make a Party political point over the parental consent issue, it was clear that we were not going to have a happy night.
Over the next couple of hours, her behaviour deteriorated. While I actually quite enjoy a bit of good heckling, Mrs Collins behaved in an increasingly petulant manner, rudely nattering away while others spoke, mouthing 'Shutup' to someone in the audience who dared to disagree with her, questioning the right of the audience to ask the questions they wanted, and finally refusing to answer a direct question on the Iraq war. Being a helpful fellow I politely stepped into that paticuar breach.
I got on fine with other canidates from across the political spectrum, and simply sould not fathom Mrs Collins sourness.
The second debate, organised by Oxfam, Amnesty, and the UN Association was completely different. It was quite a bit smaller and better humoured. Maurice attended this one, and although we got stuck into each other a few times, it was all in good spirit - the way it should be.
We'll be continuing to campaign right until the final whistle. I think this is still an extremely tight election and think that this will be reflected in polls over the next couple of days. Turnout and leadership will be the decisive factors.
The polls are all over the place:
Colmar Bruton last Sunday: Nats 9 ahead
Midweek TV3: Labour 9 ahead
Herald Friday: Deadheat
SST today: Nats 7 ahead
Herald on Sunday (snap): Labour 3.5 ahead.
...with a Colmar Brunton poll coming tonight which the Herald on Sunday suggested would contrast with the SST result.
What to make of it? Two things I think. The first is that there is exceptional volatility, particularly in National's vote. Secondly, there is no doubt heading into the final week that it is very close.
In my view, a combination of the Leaders performances, and on the ground organisation to turn out the vote, will probably decide the election.
Knife edge stuff!
Great day of campaigning today.
Leafleting at Pakuranga Plaza bus stop kicked things of this morning. This went well again, with another very positive reaction from students to the interset-free policy.
Then a big leafletting drive through the day. The best thing about this was that about half a dozen people stopped me to chat along the way, and offered their support.
Lunch was good too. Labour was nicely ahead in the Pakuranga Muffin Break coffee bean poll!
The afternoon saw a bit of hoardings maintenance, including the replacement of one of our horror sites in Howick that seems to get hit every second night. I won't attempt to describe what was written and drawn on this one! Again, a number of passersby offered their support. We also put up a fantastic new sign in Half Moon Bay that was offered by a supporter who called us up and suggested the use of his property.
The day was rounded off by an extremely positive bout of campaigning along Casurina Rd in Pigeon Mountain. There was hardly a negative response.
A bit of a dream campaign day really, and I'm quite ready to be brought back to earth tomorrow!
This is very funny.
Mainly because it is true. All it does is quote back Brash's various contradictory positions on a range of issues.
Not everyone 'likes' Helen Clark or agrees with all of Labour's policies, but a number of right leaning voters have told me during the campaign that at least they know what they are getting with her. With Brash, who knows what the policy will be next week? His comment the other day that he could not comment on National's housing policy because he had not "read the press statement" was a new low.
I think that this leadership issue will be a critical one in these closing weeks of the campaign.
It has been a good days campaigning.
I began with some leafletting of people at the Highland Park bus stop this morning which went very well. Naturally, many of the people at the bus stop were students going into Auckland University and AUT, so the response to our interest-free policy was very good.
The middle of the day was taken up by a lot of leafletting around the central Howick area. We seem to be getting quite a good response to this. In 2002, I received very few phone calls or e-mails in response to our leafletting, but this time there is steady daily feedback, and most of it is good, or at the very least, genuinely undecided and enquiring.
Lunch was an extremely unhealthy visit to the Roast Dinner store on Aviemore Dr where I had my first after school job. I can heartily recommend this place - they were doing the roast dinner thing when there were only about 3 such stores in Auckland, and they still do a mean pork roll.
More leafletting in the afternoon, followed by a bit of doorknocking in central Howick, then home to work on various bits of campaign administration.
More of the same tomorrow...
I caught the end of a One News item this evening which seemed to show Don Brash over-ruling Maurice Williamson on the Eastern Corridor issue.
Maurice once again extolled the virtues of the corridor at the debate I had with him over transport policy a couple of months ago, so I would be extremely interested to know if this was the case.
There doesn't yet seem to be anything online... did anyone see the full story?
It has been an exceptionally busy week, hence the lack of recent blog entries.
The last few days in particular have been hectic. Our second major electorate-wide electorate has been parcelled out to our team of deliverers across the electorate, I've had a cluster of speaking engagements with local community groups, door knocking in the Pigeon Mountain area has commenced, the signage network has been expanded (and repaired where necessary), and I have commenced bus stop visits to meet local residents first thing in the morning.
I've had some particularly enjoyable meetings with the Shakti Seniors group, the Selwyn Seniors, and Half Moon Bay Rotary. People at the meetings were extremely interested in the election, and had plenty of searching questions. I appreciated the opportunity.
The recent polls suggest a hard slog ahead for Labour to win a third term, so the next two weeks promise to be even busier. I am on annual leave now, so campaigning is now a full-time activity.
I wouldn't usually draw attention to this, but I think that a glance at National's website is actually quite telling.
We are in the middle of an extremely competitive election campaign, with high levels of public interest, but what does National have to offer up in its featured 'National News' section?
Well, firstly and obviously a link to details about the tax announcement - fair enough, that is National's centrepiece (some would argue only) policy. Beyond that though, it's very sparce. There are two stories that are 2 weeks old, one of which is an announcement about National creating a new Ministerial role (I thought they believed in a smaller cabinet), and the second is weirdly, an ad about their TV ad. The other story is the 3 week old launch of National's immigration policy.
In the world of websites, this is all very dated. Labour's website on the other hand has six uptodate stories that are no older than 3 days.
To me this reflects, when you take tax cuts out of the equation, National's absence of anything positive to say about where they would take New Zealand. Labour on the other hand has produced a substantial youth policy, announced an $80 million plan to get new entrant class sizes down to 15, and a plan to give all pre-schoolers extra health checks over the last week, and that's just off the top of my head.
I was also surprised to see the "Helengrad Hall of Infamy" section further down the site. This section seems solely devoted to taking personal pot-shots at the PM, and at this stage contains a silly rip-off song. Is this the website of a serious Party wanting to govern, or a socially inadequate teenage libertarian?
It has been an exceptionally busy campaign weekend.
Things got off to quite a strange start on Saturday. A couple of us set up a stall and begun handing out information at the Pakuranga Plaza. Usually we receive quite a good response at this location. The polling booth beside the Plaza is quite a strong one for us and we comfortably won the Party vote there in 2002.
After 15 minutes of leafleting however, we were feeling distinctly unloved. Aside from malevolent stares and snarls of disdain we encountered muttered comments about "communists" and one woman actually physically pulled her child away from us as if to avoid contamination. It look set to be a very long afternoon.
An explanation came after about 15 minutes when, after seeing Maurice walking by, we established that a National Party meeting was taking place inside the supermarket. It was therefore unsurprising that we were getting a hard time as many of the people walking by were attending the meeting!
Anyway, things settled down after that and we had a good response over the ensuing hour or two before heading off to doorknock the Millen/Latham Ave area, which was also very positive.
Today summed up the difference between the two main Parties, and their respective campaigns.
On one hand National gave a good impression of three senile, blind dogs put in a sack in a sausage factory as the bumbled and stumbled over each other with regard to their three contradictory policies on native logging. Inthe end Brash executed a perfect flip-flop and scuttled what would have been a hugely unpopular policy. This is not a Party fit to run the local rabbit board, let alone a country.
On the other hand, Labour delivered a positive new policy that will make a huge difference in our primary schools. Labour will inject up to $80 million per year to bring new entrant classes down to a one teacher to fifteen child teaching ratio. The current ratio is 1:23. The policy will give young New Zealanders the best possible learning environment at a critical stage of their development.
National simply cannot deliver investments in our future of this kind while they are wedded to giving high income earners a $92 tax cut per week. I would personally receive quite a good tax cut under National, but I'd rather know that 5 year olds in our public schools are getting a great education.
http://www.times.co.nz/letters/story_0007499.shtml
Order in one’s home first
AS a candidate with Christian beliefs I was offended by Ewen McQueen’s comments (Times, August 23) that Labour is “anti-Christian”.
As Pastor Ian Buckley says in the article, there are “multiple opinions among Bible-believing Christians”. Mr McQueen’s comment suggests a narrow fundamentalist outlook that is intolerant of anyone who comes up with views different to his.
I am proud of the principled stands that the Labour government has made against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, against participating in the immoral Iraq war, and against the scourge of child poverty in our country.
Labour’s policies have seen child poverty fall from one in three children to among the lowest in the developed world.
These are policies that reflect my Christian beliefs.
Coming from a party formerly led by the disgraced Graham Capill, Mr McQueen should be careful about using the political stage to lecture people about morals.
The Bible I know tells us we should keep our own houses in order rather than jumping to judgment against others.
Michael Wood,
Labour candidate for Pakuranga
An article in yesterdays Herald highlighted another good reason why ordinary working people will not benefit from National's tax cut plans.
Aside from the fact that 66% of people will see a tax cut of only around $10/week, the following comment from the Managing Director of the Times Newspapers, which co-incidentally publishes the H&P Times, shows that the benefits of tax cuts will not necessarily accrue to workers:
"Times Newspapers managing director Reay Neben says while the company won't benefit from the decision to defer corporate tax cuts, the personal tax rates changes will alleviate pressure to increase staff pay rates. "
In other words, the employer will hold off on giving pay rises that s/he would otherwise feel obliged to give, and argue that the employee has received a raise through tax cuts! Result, the worker is actually no better off.
This is actually an important part of the debate, for despite their public protestations that they want to see the incomes of New Zealanders increased, National has taken pot shots at any group of workers who have tried to win a decent increase this year (ie; the EPMU 5% campaign). If the strategy is to give workers a payrise through a tax cut, then where does it stop - most workers expect a pay rise each year.
Labour has delivered investment in skills and training like apprenticeships, and fairer labour laws. These are contributing far more to long-term wage growth than a measly $10/week tax cut can.
I guess that when you're looking for excuses for not winning a leaders debate you can't use the tried and tested "the dog ate my notes" as an excuse, but Don Brash's comment that he "restrained" himself because Helen Clark is a woman, is simply strange.
The PM has rightly called this patronising, but frankly it's just pathetic. As if the constant prevarication, flip-flopping, unwillingness to answer specific questions (ie; details about NCEA), and general failure to show a firm grasp of policy, were all not enough to show that this man is not a leader, then this comment confirms it.
You don't go into a debate as a prospective Prime Minister and go easy on the other person because of their gender. Brash has either shown a strange patronising attitude to half of the population, or he is lying to cover up for a sub-par performance on a day when National should have dominated through sheer blanket coverage of the tax cut policy.
The past couple of weeks have seen our campaign in Pakuranga shift into top gear. Over the past couple of weeks we have:
- knocked on around 800 doors
- produced and then distributed 20 000 leaflets to our team of deliverers
- held several stalls in shopping areas meeting hundreds of locals
- accepted three invitations to speak to community groups
- made contact with around 20 large worksites with a view to holding meetings
- continued to expand our network of signage
And that's just the big stuff. With the official Labour campaign launch taking place at the Auckland townhall tomorrow we expect things to get even more frenetic. The final two weeks of the campaign will see our activities reach a peak.
It's all good fun and the response is great, but roll on September 18!
(The attached picture is of a group of very wet campaign helpers after an afternoon doorknocking in the Ennis Ave area).
Today's announcement that Labour will extend the Working for Families package to cover 60 000 more Nw Zealand families makes the choices at this election chrystal clear.
Whereas National will enact expensive tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy, Labour will invest in ordinary New Zealand families - the backbone of our economy and society. The Greens have done a comparison of what a probable tax cut package vs. the Working for Families package would mean for working New Zealand families, and it is a stark picture.
Across the board tax cuts would give Don Brash a $380/week tax cut were he (god forbid) to be Prime Minister, and just $28/week more to the average kiwi family on $50 000. Contrarily, Labour will provide $113/week assistance to that average family.
It's simple really, do we want policies that benefit the wealthy few, or average hard working families?
After months of hyping their tax cut plans, National has over the last week or so furiously tried to downplay public expectations ahead of their announcement on Monday.
Here is a link to a very good interview between blogger Keith Ng and Michael Cullen, in which Cullen explains the fiscal realities that government has to deal with, and the impossibility of large tax cuts without equally large tax cuts or overseas borrowing.
In the middle of a sloganeering election campaign, it's nice to actually read a reasoned, detailed analysis from one of the major players. Not exactly a light read, but a good overview of Labour's fiscal strategy.
