Corrupt vs Cancerous
The NZ Herald Digipoll is fascinating. Not for the party vote figures (which have National well ahead) but for the question of whether people agree with Labour being called corrupt, and Helen Clark calling Don Brash cancerous.
52% say Dr Brash was right to call Labour corrupt, with only 38% disagreeing. This should ring massive warning bells to all Labour MPs (esp as even 30% of those voting Labour agree with the corrupt tag). Not that I am in the habit of giving friendly advice to Labour but for the love of God just follow what the Greens have done and say “As much as we disagree with the Auditor-General, we will pay back any money he declares was not appropriate to pay from The Parliamentary Service”. This will get rid of the corruption stench overmight – well that plus finding a new candidate for Mangere.
Most NZers are fair minded. They will not judge Labour corrupt off the original decision to fund the pledge card from their parliamentary budget. It’s the refusal to pay it back which brings the corrupt tag with it. The electoral over-spend was also corrupt but that can now never be determined in court.
As for Helen calling Don Brash “corrosive and cancerous”, my insitinct when I heard it was a blunder of massive proportions. And in the poll 74% of voters say the comment was “not okay”. The PM has forgotten the difference between language hard-core partisan activists will agree with, and language which resonates with most NZers.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:28 am
Also interesting in the Herald today is this sidebar, which seems to show sleaze isn’t going down well with women voters either.
National remains neck-and-neck with Labour in the battle for the female vote, with the latest Herald Digi-Poll survey hinting that there has been little fallout yet for Don Brash from his reported affair.
The poll shows National has 42.3 per cent support among females and Labour has 42.7 per cent.
[...] The last Herald poll in August had National slightly ahead of Labour in the race for female votes – something the party could not achieve in any of the newspaper’s polls in the lead-up to last year’s election.
One of the potential negative spinoffs for National from publicity about Dr Brash’s alleged affair with businesswoman Diane Foreman was a drop in female support.
But a breakdown of female reaction to the affair story shows an interesting twist.
Asked if the public ought to have been told about Dr Brash’s supposed affair, 76.5 per cent of women said no.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:34 am
National must go for the doctor even if Labour do pay the money back. I doubt that clark would admit she was wrong. If they do pay it back there must be no reduction in pressure until Williams/Simpson are brought to account politically for their corrupt behaviour. They cannot be prosecuted but there must be a very public recognition that their behaviour and that of the labour caucus was corrupt.
Labour know this and that is what scares them. They have boxed themselves into a very tight corner.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Cancerous also stigmatises a person who has a serious illness. Perhaps it was a freudian slip relating to someone she knows with the serious illness. The remark has damaged her, so she drops out of sight for a while and goes on a skiing holiday, hoping to be forgiven when she returns.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:47 am
Look, even No Right Turn’s Idiot/Savant – who is never going to join the Don Brash Fan Club, had this to say:
“
September 26th, 2006 at 7:05 am
What’s concerning me is that Labour has a clear 40% base of hard-core support, that will be there no matter what. National has suffered the backlash of “thinking” voters in the past, and has to work hard to ensure they have their 40% base support locked up for the election. Because it seems to me, repeatedly, that Labour may be down, but is far from out. Don’t forget that by the time it comes to voting, they have their financial tentacles in the pockets of most of the undecideds. And a few scare tactics – a labour strength – is all it is going to take to bring 2 or 3 percent into line, and take an election by 1 percent again.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:17 am
Good point Belt, but I will not concede Labour’s core vote is 40% when you have National, the Greens and the Maori Party chipping away and bit by bit it will fall away. But its resiliance is strong I will concede that.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Belt:
Belt:
As I said on another thread, anyone on the right who thinks Clark & Co. are just going to clear their desks and obligingly sod off is a good argument for random workplace drug testing. But the right isn’t going to score a win worth having through bidding war with the left. You can’t win, and there’s always the pesky question of how it’s going to be paid for.
In the last campaign, National’s tax policy didn’t ‘resonate’ because (as the lefties claim) all National voters are stupid, greedy assholes who don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves. They were presented with a clear, principled point of difference. And the Cullenistas who regard tax cuts as the political euqivalent of Satan-worship were clearly in the minority.
You can’t win an argument if you’re not even willing to even go out there and make your case, or you principles are going to change with every poll and focus group. It’s not going to be the chequebook that closes the next election for National, but policy and convincing the electorate that (to paraphrase one of the most famous election billboards ever) that Labour isn’t working.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:45 am
“It’s not going to be the chequebook that closes the next election for National, but policy and convincing the electorate that (to paraphrase one of the most famous election billboards ever) that Labour isn’t working.”
I’d love to think that’s true, but at the end of the day it seems that most people vote with their hip pocket.And as Belt points out, scare tactics have been very effective in the past.
It’ll be interesting to see which way the media jump, come an election campaign.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:47 am
good call david…
(esp on the corruption/not corruption angle..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2006 at 8:07 am
I don’t think there is any question of ‘winning’ the election. Political parties don’t ‘win’ the election any more; they simply get the most votes. Then the party has to negotiate with other parties to form a government.
Ideologically Labour and National are identical (with the odd outlier like Brash). Clark would have made just as good a leader of a National Party as she has of a Labour one. National is likely to get more votes than Labour in the next election, not because of ideology, but because of all the fresh, talented bods on its benches and because Labour is old and tired.
The only question is what proportion of the population represents a majority something which is dependent on the pull of minor parties. Getting the majority does not guarantee being in government if the majority party is not able to form a coalition.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Brian Connell for promotion at today’s caucus?
Just a thought.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:23 am
That ticket belongs to Key
September 26th, 2006 at 8:35 am
I think the interesting twist is in the way the Herald has reported the gender differences cited above by Craig. The finding that 76.5 percent of women disagreed that the public ought to know about the Brash affair is not evidence that they would not let it affect their vote. It may be more relevant that support for Brash surged among men but not among women.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:16 am
I reckon Espiner is right on the ball:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/0,2106,3807873a12735,00.html
Basically: Clark made herself unpopular in order to elicit polls like this and to try to prevent Brash being replaced.
If the Nats don’t roll Brash today then they don’t deserve even a majority in 2008.
To quote Espiner:
I would go so far as to say that if Brash isn’t rolled today then that is an indication that money and power from without the party now has more bearing than the National caucus itself, and National will forever remain a second or third party option for the NZ electorate.
The Brethren and Roundtable connections are related in that they both represent moneyed interests that appear to influence the National leadership from the inside. Also relevant is the fact that Brash is an unelected MP (list) brought in on a wave of money. If the supposedly democratic elements within the National Party are insufficient to unseat these external influences then the National Party can now be considered to be under the influence of minority forces and unable to represent the ‘mainstream’. In that case aspirant career politicians within National would be seeking to align themselves with other parties in recognition of the fact that you get paid more if you lead a minor party than you do if you are a backbencher in a major one.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:20 am
I’m sorry, I thought I had the blockquote in the right place. The Colin Espiner quote above ends at ‘Don and Gerry Show’.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Kent:
I think you and Colin Espiner have the same problem: You’re both beginning to sound like Blackadder‘s Baldrick, who persists in spinning out his “cunning plans” but never quite gets how ridiculous they are.
I suspect much of the commentariat are going to be reminded of this old saw: Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and most of them stink. I don’t think you’re going to get your coup today – but you never had a vote where it counted, did you?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:03 am
I doubt Clark was trying for a double cushion shot. Labour is trying to create mischief in National’s ranks on the leadership issue but Clark’s mis-steps are more straightforwardly explained as bad judgment calls.
And I also doubt that National is at the mercy of “external influences” anymore than any other political party. Labour being supported by unions is not the same as Labour being at the mercy of unions.
Labour was particularly inept in threatening the EBs with legislative revenge but at some point it might be worth looking at the tax status of all religious groups, especially if they are going to be involved in politics.
Also, the central issue of the influence that groups like the EBs can have is not going to go away. The Left may also at some point not like overseas “friends” offering assistance. Chavez is already busy creating his own mischief in the US and Britain.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Neil,
I agree, she is not likely to be doing it consciously. I also agree with the general opinion that she is past her prime and is dog tucker at the next election, but hell, nine years is enough for anyone!
Unless one is a member of the National caucus itself one can only guess at the forces that are currently holding Key/Rich/English and likes from carrying out the inevitable ‘et tu Brutus’ on the ageing Don. If there are excess amounts of external influence holding him in place then that will figure in their future actions and the future shape of the National Party.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I think when you reach the point, which we are at now, in which it is a situation of when and not if, then the deed has to be done. It’s not something you advertise that you are going to do beforehand and if asked you steadfastly deny. I think the point has been reached where it would be more costly to carry on with the doubt of leadership than to do the coup.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Mmmm the problem with the “Brash scares little children and grandmothers so lets loose poll support and by doing that National will keep Brash who we off a lower base of pubic support will beat again (having only just won against him last time)” rationale for Labour’s tactics is that it is far too complex to be likely.
First off National is still likely to replace Don Brash before the next election anyway. So why zap one’s poll support now as a new National Leader will likely get a poll boost?
More importantly Brash doesn’t scares little children and grandmothers. This is pure leftwing beatoff material – voters don’t share that view.
What this poll says is that pounding Brash and probably Exclusive Brethren isn’t working for Labour in fact it is damaging Labour’s own standing.
They need to move into remedy mode on the parliamentary spending issue. The choice is clear: pay ongoing political price or pay a financial price but lessen the political problem.
Clark’s strength was that she was straightforward, matter-of-fact and without drama. For Labour to have any change of recovery on this issue they need to return to the old new Clark not the old old Clark.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:55 am
neil morrison said..
“..Chavez is already busy creating his own mischief in the US and Britain…”
are you referring to his helping the poor of both countries with subsidised heating oil..?
and if so..that’s ‘mischief’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
phil – yes it is, he’s doing it to gain political advantage by distorting local politics. His concern for the poor is a facade.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
And look how Colin demolishes another Liar-bour lie from honestless Helen.
But the smutty insinuations that Davis was gay are so ludicrous Clark could simply have laughed them off. The Prime Minister has nothing to link them to National, besides hearsay claims that several press gallery journalists had been approached. Well, this press gallery journalist has never been told those rumours by National MPs.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Well I must say that if I were gay I would be pretty upset at Helen for the way she handled that situation. Peter was disgusted… so if I were gay I’d be classified as disgusting now?
Disgusted that a friend (long term friend who was open about his sexual orientation) kissed him. So let me see, it’s cool to have gay friends, it’s cool to pass legislation that allows gay people to associate and form legal unions, it’s cool to have anti discrimination laws for sexual orientation but her husband is suddenly ‘disgusted’ by it…
Get real, if the guy likes it that way then fantastic, hope he is happy, if he likes it both ways then that doubles his chances at parties and I hope he’s happy. If he is disgusted by homosexual behaviour then being married to a Labour PM and having gay friends around must be a living nightmare for the poor wee sausage.
Should we all say ‘Oh dear, poor wee petal’ together for him?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
The part of the poll I found most interesting was that 28% of Labour supporters thought Brash was right to call Labour corrupt. While that may not change their vote, they still identufy themselves as Labour supporters, I imagine that it will have an impact on Labour’s ability to organise campaign volunteers at the next election.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
The part of the poll I found most interesting was that 28% of Labour supporters thought Brash was right to call Labour corrupt. While that may not change their vote, they still identufy themselves as Labour supporters, I imagine that it will have an impact on Labour’s ability to organise campaign volunteers at the next election.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:17 am
With National’s recent positive poll numbers many are left to ponder; how are they going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this time round?……
For what it’s worth; my money’s on a tumultuous and self-defecating leadership battle…. like the good old days….
After all, when you’re riding high in the polls and you finally have a leader who’s been at the helm long enough that he’s starting to gain a level of comfortability and familiarity about him with voters, the logical thing to do is to roll him, right?
As for Colin Espiner; anyone who reads his columns on a regular basis will have figured out by now that we’re talking about a genuine ‘two ticks for Labour’ guy here…
As a centre-right party, it’s when people like this call on you to dump your leader, that you know you’ve got a keeper
His arguments for dumping Brash are particularly weak; “his detractors say this about him.. and that.. and blah blah..”
Look at all the things Clark’s detractors have said about her and accused her of. And at what point did the Labour party panic and say “Oh the Opposition is calling her evil, corrupt, union slave, marxist, etc etc… so we’d better dump her, quick!” ? – NEVER.
And their reward? – so far 7 years in government, and counting…
Yes Brash has been accused of everything, been called every name under the sun, and to top it all off had an embarrassing affair smeared out all over the media, for the world to see.
The result? – well, by all accounts the evidence so far seems to suggest he has come out smelling of roses. His personal preference ratings are slowly gaining more and more traction and the party is polling at historically impressive levels, even 49% according to Colmar Brunton.
National should sit up and take notice of this before doing anything rash/stupid.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:16 am
The poll result reveals a lot. Obviously all that fluffy talk about her husband was just an attempt to grab back a few % points in the polls. Your PM seems to bear the hallmarks of Idi Amin (megalomania) and Dick Nixon (cynicism).
September 27th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Burt wrote:
Well I must say that if I were gay I would be pretty upset at Helen for the way she handled that situation. Peter was disgusted… so if I were gay I’d be classified as disgusting now?
Well, there was a fascinating Freudian slip in media commentator Phil Wallington’s segment on Nine to Noon last week, where he fumed that Peter Davis is (quote) “normal” and it was outrageous that anyone would suggest anything else.
There are three objections to that:
1) Unless Mr Wallington has a surveilance device attached to Peter Davis’ wang, he doesn’t know anything more about the sex life of the Prime Minister’s husband than I do. For the record, that’s ‘nothing, and I’m quite happy to stay in blissful ignorance on that score’.
2) Here’s the real issue. Just for the sake of argument, if Peter Davis is gay/bisexual and his wife is aware of that fact and still wants to stay with the lug, what business is that of anyone other than the two parties directly affected?
3) Mr. Wallington (and some other insecure folks out there in the commentariat), may be hiding a lot of homosexual panic under a thin veneers of liberal ‘tolerance’. That’s their pathology, and more common than you might think, but I don’t really care until it directly impacts my life. But, in Peter Davis’ position I’d be a lot more offended by rumours that I was a ‘normal’ (i.e. heterosexual) rapist, paedophile, or (say) had a liking for underage whores. He’s also a senior academic – what would false allegations of sexual harassment of female co-workers or students do to his reputation? I’d find that a damn sight worse than tittle-tattle that I was a pooftah.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Lawyer Steve Price was interviewed on Nine to Noon on whether it was defamatory to say someone is gay. Worth a listen.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/ninetonoon
11.38 Law