Greens not contesting Coromandel
Pretty sensible decision not to contest Coromandel. National’s Goudie has built up a 10,000 vote majority and Fitzsimons time is better spent on the party vote.
The Greens should look at standing in a potentially winnable seat – one of those which has a strong party vote for them. If they continue to be close to the 5% threshold then Labour voters might vote strategically and elect a Green candidate to ensure the Greens remain in Parliament. It worked for Prebble in 96 and Hide in 05.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Except Labour supporters aren’t bright enough to vote strategically like that.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
Why help these undesirables with strategy? If they can’t work out their own they don’t deserve to be in parliament.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
That leaves West Coast – Tasman or Wellington. Where’s Russel standing?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 am
What seat is potentially their best, David? I’d assumed it was Coromandel. And I remember Denis Welch going for Wellington Central when the Greens were in the Alliance, though Chris Laidlaw won it… not for long. However the showing made by Ioana Pannett and Stephanie Cook in the recent council elections, and the high profile of Sue Kedgley, must make Wellington Central worth looking at.
[DPF: Standing Russel Norman in Wgtn Central would be their best bet for two reasons. One is it has a massively high party vote for Greens. The second is it is highly intelligent and has shown it understands strategic voting]
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
If then Greens were serious about Wellington Central they’d be running Russel Norman – and they’re not.
West Coast Tasman really isn’t a goer – on paper it’s now a marginal between O’Connor and Auchinvole.
I would have thought a strong Labour Auckland seat would be the way to go. Why not Waitakere? Almost worked for the Alliance and it is held by a weak MP.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Actually, keeping the Greens in parliament would not necessarily be a logical Labour supporter strategy at all. A lot of what the Greens stand for is inimical to the country’s economic future regardless of the politics of the government involved, and even a Labour minority government wouldn’t want to know them. Stitching together agreement with the Greens and having to give in to some of their screwy ideas would be political suicide (as if it wasn’t a case of enough already!). I think Helen and Mikhail might actually be almost as glad to see the Greens gone from parliament altogether as I would be.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Labour would be doing us all a favour if they directed their supporters NOT to vote tactically for a Green candidate, like National much more stupidly tends to tell THEIR supporters not to vote for an ACT candidate.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Good point Phil.
I’ve often thought it would be a good strategy to allow ACT a few electorate seats to give an overhang to the centre-right.
Taking it to a logical extreme would have National winning 40% of the electorate vote, ACT 0% but 15 or so seats would give the centre-right the numbers to govern.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 am
The Green will most likely get 5% at the 2008 election. If the polls keep going so strongly against Labour then I think that will help them as some far left Labour voters will vote for them. This happened to National in 1999 and 2002 where ACT picked up a lot of support from annoyed National voters.
The mistake they have made is to back the EFB and get off message. The other issue is the leadership. Since Donald’s demise there has been a serious lack of direction in the party. Russel Norman frankly so far has come across as an underwhelming presence especially on TV. How Colin James could name Fitzsimmons politician of the year defies all logic and merely shows his usual leftwing bias.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I agree with DPF’s reasons for Wellington Central being the Greens’ best bet.
Since they won Coromandel, I think their ‘green’ message has relatively ess appeal in provincial NZ that it has in univeristy electorates like WC. Dairy boom times also mean that farmers and farmhands outnumber the soap-haters in WC-T and Coro in a way they didn’t in 99.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I’m sure that Jeanette will get a rousing reception as she hawks her pearlly around the country next year.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“Taking it to a logical extreme would have National winning 40% of the electorate vote, ACT 0% but 15 or so seats would give the centre-right the numbers to govern.”
That’s a facinating idea, pity the Nats and Act would never try it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I’m sure ACT would be happy to discuss it. Pity the Nats wouldn’t.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Wouldn’t hurt the Greens to place a strong candidate in Port Hills. The boundary changes have made it a Labour safe seat, and it’s also home to the late leader Rod Donald. Perhaps some warm fuzzy feelings toward Donald could help whip up some votes for them?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
The problem for the Greens with Wellington Central is that it is by its nature a marginal electorate and often subject to dramatic boundary changes.
If I were advising the Greens I would look for an urban socially liberal seat (Coromandel and West Coast therefore out) that isn’t marginal or likely to be subject to major boundary changes (rules out Wellington Central) where the MP is not rated.
By elimination that would be Auckland Central. A seat with a history of electoral experimentation when a case is made out.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Hasn’t Auckland Central taken in a little of Epsom electorate?
I seem to remember thinking a while back that the Nats could take it if there’s a large swing against Labour.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Auckland Central has contracted – biggest loss is Pt Chevalier and then Grafton and Newton. Driven by a rising CBD population and a little from Waiheke.
The Greens could win it with the right candidate. The Nats might but it would take a very special candidate for them to do it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
They could offer Taito Field a high list position and stand him in South Auckland.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I’m sure ACT would be happy to discuss it. Pity the Nats wouldn’t.
Actually it’s a bloody retarded idea because ACT wouldn’t win a single seat.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
RebelHeart:
I see those 50 demerits from the other day haven’t caught up with you yet. You really should get out more. Like, say, Epsom.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
POC, I see that your brain hasn’t caught up with you yet. Do you really think ACT would win 15 electoral seats if National stood aside for them?
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
May I humbly suggest RebelFart that your brain has a morbid fixation on the word “retarded” . What psych hospital should I send a stan cake for Chrissy ?
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
So D4J, if you think it’s OK to say I belong in a psychiatric hospital then I assume you’ll have no problem with me saying you belong in jail for being a sugar daddy?
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Oh and I can be mature and call you names too, Dad 4 Pedophilia.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Unbelievable irrational adult behviour both here and The Briefing Room blog at the same time .
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
You mean like this?
fugley , Rangi Carroll, hinamanu, and piffle peter = devil worshipers from snake ville . How childish you creeps are . How sad you creeps are .Such cowards made me ashamed that you live in this country . What sad case studies in madness. What sick lives you lead . Why not relieve us all .
Posted by: dad4justice | December 22, 2007 at 06:40 AM
Oh yes Sam Finnemore and pathetic piffle peter – what a limp attempt at trying to discredit me . I can’t wait for payback time as you slimeball cowards are going to be smashed big time !!!
Posted by: dad4justice | December 22, 2007 at 06:43 AM
Look piffle peter you are the saddest nut case on the internet . You are troll and a utter disgrace to common sense and decency . You are pure filth . Stop it you loser . Go get hold of some inspiration you creepy satanic slime ,goodbye !!
Posted by: dad4justice | December 22, 2007 at 08:45 AM
Unbelievable irrational behaviour both on here and kiwiblog . Unreal . What evil people .
Posted by: dad4justice | December 22, 2007 at 05:01 PM
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I really get under your skin at Christmas – eh matey !!!
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I love getting you worked up, even if it means I get demerits/banned it’s worth it : P
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
RebelHeart:
*Buzz*
You said:
I said:
Nothing to do with winning 15 seats. You’re the one changing the script. Try engaging your brain next time, Stan, instead of making assumptions about mine.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
My original post was responding to the fact that someone suggested it was closed-minded of National not to discuss giving away (as in, not stand candidates) electoral seats so that ACT would get say the 15 seats so there would be an overhang. You were the one who changed the point and took my post out of context by saying it was about Epsom. If National really did not stand candidates in those seats, and asked voters to give them the party vote and give ACT the candidate vote they’d be retards to assume people will give their vote to the ACT candidates. Try engaging your penis next time, POC. It’s better for you to spend your time masturbating to porn than debating politics.
[DPF: And that's another 20 points for a two week suspension]
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
That’s unnecessarily offensive, Stan. Try and keep you head out of your pants, eh?
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Hey, porn is a social good man. I fully endorse it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
“I love getting you worked up, even if it means I get demerits/banned it’s worth it : P”
Good stuff stan, however you have no chance of me scoring demerits runs on the kiwiblog wicket again . I can score about as fast as Ricky Ponting can against the Black caps . I know you play cricket for the cup chicks were a many participating player high tails it from the ground traumatized .
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Oh whatever. I still think your comment was below the belt. And, subject to anything DPF might say, I’m just as entitled to debate politics here as the guy next door.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“Hey, porn is a social good man. I fully endorse it.”
Clearly this man is a walking advertisement for satan ?
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Well I apologise if you were offended POC, I just didn’t want to use the same insult (“use your brain”) twice, especially since you reused it. Although I think a porn star would be offended you think it’s offensive to tell someone to go watch porn (eg. it’d be like you saying: “why don’t you be a truck driver”, and me saying: “that’s offensive”. A truck driver would find it offensive I think it’s offensive to be a truck driver.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
so you are dump truck driver stan , is your truck running bio spew ?
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
dad4justice Says:
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Clearly this man is a walking advertisement for satan ?
Haha… I just wish I could hold up a mirror for you D4J. Matthew chapter 7 rules obviously don’t apply to you.
Have a look at this song and see if you get anything out of it. And I want to ask you seriously – do you go to Church here in Christchurch? Are you talking to any pastors or counselors there?
http://www.christianlyricsonline.com/artists/joy-williams/do-they-see-jesus-in-me.html
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I am lost for words stan .
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
RebelHeart/Stan:
I’ve just had a look over at The Briefing Room to see what the fuss is all about. It’s clearly you posting under the alias “Dad 4 Pedophilia”. I suggest you take a good hard look at yourself, and your morals, before lecturing D4J on attending church.
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I’ve just had a look over at The Briefing Room to see what the fuss is all about. It’s clearly you posting under the alias “Dad 4 Pedophilia”. I suggest you take a good hard look at yourself, and your morals, before lecturing D4J on attending church.
I don’t deny being D4P, in fact I would be surprised if anyone thought it was anyone other than me. I don’t see your point. I made a post under the name D4P which quotes D4J’s posts, then replacing the people he was attacking with the names of politicians. It is the equivalent of me doing this…
Peak Oil Fact says:
Helen Clark/Cullen:
I’ve just had a look over at The Briefing Room to see what the fuss is all about. It’s clearly you posting under the alias “Dad 4 Pedophilia”. I suggest you take a good hard look at yourself, and your morals, before lecturing D4J on attending church.
So besides the name itself which is a piss take, I don’t see anything morally wrong with quoting someone’s post and replacing the names of people that are being attacked.
And what do you have against me asking D4J if he attends Church? I’m genuinely interested to know.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Same Church as richard h and tim bar …..you know anyway stan
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
RebelHeart/Stan:
I’m pleased you can rationalise your actions to yourself. But there’s one obvious flaw in your argument: D4J doesn’t go round calling people paedophiles. It’s you who’s introducing this aspect into the “debate” (if that’s how you see it). At best, D4J comments on others’ sanity.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
“The problem for the Greens with Wellington Central is that it is by its nature a marginal electorate and often subject to dramatic boundary changes.”
A marginal seat is what they need. That means neither of National or Labour have big majority that the have to defeat, also marginal may mean more floaters not attached to a particular party.
I agree Auckland Central would be another good idea though.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
We have MMP, therefore it’s not necessary for the Greens to go for an electorate. History tells us that they seldom preform as well in the candidate vote as they do in the party vote – to take their leader out of the electorate equation is the logical thing to do.
I presume this will give the Greens an increased percentage in the election. More power to them I say.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 am
Wellcome back, dad4justice. Im leading in the demerites stakes so i might go missing for a while ,but i cant work out Davids mathes , The moderator probably sets the NCEA mathes paper.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:26 am
Good morning John , don’t worry about demerits mate , just imagine if the foolish clowns in parliament had a demerit scoreboard eh ? Nobody would be there and madam speaker would be left talking to the pigeons that shit everywhere .
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 am
Why anyone would want to do a deal with the greens until after the election is beyond me. Most people see them as decidedly flaky with a very pro maori lean hidden beneath the surface.
All the Global warming stuff that labour has acted on would have happened without the greens because of international marketing pressures – gobernmens and industry bodies just love things like airmiles etc to be efective non tariff barriers. Frankly the greens have achieved bugger all – especialy since Rod Donald departed the scene. He was their only effect representative.
After the election is another matter. Labour did a grest job last time in sowing them up for almost nothing in return. However there is one very nasty black mark and thats the anti smacking law – it has stained both the score sheet of labour and the greens. Other than this labour has got their vopte and the greens have really achieved nothing.
Now if the greens really want to make thier mark they will endorse nuclear power. Its got a lot going for it. No CO2. It is the only viable alternate to oil and coal and it can replace oil and coal for both electric power and (petrol) for cars. Trouble is theyve not only painted themselves into a corner over it, they are mostly brainwashed to believe that nuclear is bad.
Silly buggers.