Hooton on how Labour can win
SST Columnist Matthew Hooton also has some advice on how Labour can win. His column isn’t obline but some extracts:
On one issue at least, Helen Clark is true to her word. In 1990, Clark vowed to be as “vicious, nasty and opportunist as anyone” to return Labour to power. Eighteen years later, her promise still holds.
Well that is one promise she has kept.
Clark also knows the power of fear. Labour’s superb “Don’t Put It All At Risk” advertising campaign in the last few days before the 2005 election, while funded with illegal spending, was more powerful even than National’s iwi/kiwi billboards.
Just as with Crosby / Texter’s “Are You Thinking What We’re Thinking?” campaign for the British Tories in 2005, “Don’t Put It All At Risk” was devoid of content and simply invited voters to define for themselves what they were most afraid of and associate it with Don Brash. Along with Labour’s letters to state-house tenants implying they would be evicted if they voted National, the campaign was the ultimate in fear-mongering, dog-whistling politics, and it won the election for Clark and Labour in 2005.
The state house eviction letters was classic fear-mongering indeed.
If “smear and fear” is successful in taking just five points off National’s support – driving it down from 53% to 48% – then Labour has a chance of forming a government whatever happens to its own vote.
With a Labour result of just 31%, the Greens on 10%, Winston Peters getting 5% and the Maori Party winning all seven Maori seats, a Labour/Anderton/Green/Maori/New Zealand First combination would hold 64 seats in parliament, enough to form a government.
Yes it is possible even from 31% Labour could form a Government. The only way one can be sure of a change in Government is to vote for the two parties which will definitely not support Labour.
These are minor shifts in public opinion in the heat of an election campaign, during which around a third of voters will engage in politics for the first time for three years, and make up their minds to swing the result. Political junkies like me, Chris Trotter and you, as a reader of these columns, don’t ultimately decide elections. Those reading the Hollywood pages this morning are the people who count.
Sad but true.
A National result of 48% would still be the party’s best result in 57 years yet, with Labour on just 31% support, Clark would remain prime minister, Michael Cullen would remain finance minister, Jim Anderton would remain in charge of our most important export industries, Winston Peters would keep the baubles his foreign minister’s job delivers, Jeanette Fitzsimons would get to decide what lightbulbs we must use and the Maori Party could deliver the foreshore and seabed to iwi.
Matthew sounds like Roald Dahl 
July 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
National should explain that anything other than a vote for National is very possibly a vote for Helen Clark.
Their slogan could be:
‘Don’t put it all at risk’.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
this is what i’ve been trying to tell you numbnuts for ages..
you’ve been so poll-drunk..you didn’t see/wouldn’t listen….
good to know/see the likes of hooten and macarten have taken to parroting my words..
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery..after all..eh..?
btw..how’s the hangover..?
(i’m told a dose of act..won’t ‘do it for you’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Of course Labour can still win, they have millions of dollars to spend on “policy” advertising still to run and they can simply retrospectively validate any breaches of the very confusing laws they passed for themselves.
Having shown us in 2005 how principle is a play thing when the right to hold the levers of power is at stake, nothing is beyond them.
Don’t let them rort us again! – Still why do I care, if Labour win I’m shutting down the business and getting out of NZ.
I’m assuming that it will still be legal to leave NZ if Labour win again in 2008? Can anyone confirm if Clark has been talking to Mugabe about how to stop rich bastards leaving the country when their taxes are needed to pay for baubles?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Both Hooten and McCarten are relying on Winnie the Pooh getting to 5%. That one seems a bit of a stretch to me. I think everyone, including Tauranga, is sick and tired of his peacocking. I suspect that even if Labour try to engineer some deal in Tauranga it’ll just get people’s backs up and won’t help things at all.
And it’s also no clear deal that Maori want to line up with Helen either. Given the personalities involved (Turia vs Clark, Fox vs Horomia, Harawira vs everyone) I think any arrangement between Maori and Labour would be very volatile and unlikely to last 3 years.
Helen Clark’s political capital isn’t what it was 6 years ago, so I don’t think she has the clout to hold such an unstable coalition together.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Nope, no rich bastards to leave NZ, but poor bastards can leave when stripped of all their assets
Hmm, I wonder, has the Nats said anything about selling off all the state houses as yet ?
A letter to all tenants saying they might come home to find they have an Australian insurance company as landlord if the Nats win may be useful .
Nah, the Nats would not hand over hundreds of millions of NZ dollars to convicts would they ?
July 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
oh look..!..spurt is the first to threaten to leave the country..when labour+ win..
cheerio spurt..!
what’s happened to the poll-bender..?
is it over..?
reality time..!..
eh..?
soon followed by a growing unease/sense of panic..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Hooton relies on Maori Party and NZ first actually breaking 5% threshold. The strange thing is, his theory says National will definately come down in polls while everyone else – amazingly and beyond statistical probability – will go up.
Maybe Hooten is still living in the same past that he accuses Clark of living in: Outline highly unlikely case, stir up some fear and then direct it at Clark’s administration. Gee this guy’s a real thinker. It goes further than just shoring up some of the “angry vote” that hasn’t had anything to chew on lately. Someone needs to ask him whether his fear mongering will support or inhibit the development of sensible policy ideas; support or destabilise the strategy that John Key says he and his party run; or will make the National campaign any less irrationally vicious and nasty than Clark’s – a contradiction of Key’s own assurances. The chaps who’ll be interested in such a mind numbingly dull campaign and similarly vacuuous future will be fresh out of ideas shortly after the elections.
Since it’s proven that Hooten can think better than this, maybe someone should tell him to shush till he gets a better idea.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
No panic philu, I’ll just quietly shut up the business, pay the final pays and pick a new place to live for a while. Gone by 31/03/2009.
The panic will be here, about 2010, when a lot of people like me say “f-it” and F-off leaving all the tax free special friends of Labour wondering who will pay for the lifestyles they cannot provide for themselves.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
One thing I’ve been pondering lately is the Electorate’s apparent desire for personnel, rather than policy change. Let’s say that National is elected into Govt primarily because the Electorate is tired of Labour and not because of an overwhelming desire for change in itself. And, picking up on this sentiment, National does not seek to differentiate itself much from Labour during its first term.
What happens if after 3 years (especially 3 years of economic recession) the mood changes, so that the Electorate starts demanding a different vision and direction? National could then find itself exposed to a serious incumbent disadvantage, and Labour may be gifted the perfect opportunity to ride back into power, rejuvenated and refocused.
IMO this potential scenario means that National must not just win comfortably in 2008, but must blow Labour out of the water, so that it simply has no ability to rebuild in time for 2011.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
and..where will you go spurt..?
have you thought it through that far..yet..?
i’d suggest queensland..
nice and warm..
and guaranteed to get warmer..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
philu
What is the point in packing everything up and only going that far… Dubai sounds appealing.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
also ‘getting warmer’..i assume..?
and no booze..eh..?
now..are you sure you’ve thought this through properly..?..there..young spurt..?
you’re not just flying off the handle again..?
(i know..!..i know..!..more clark..!..
i hear/feel your pain..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Labour had to pull every stop to win the 2005 election against the hapless performance of Don Brash. They had to promise the unthinkable and they had to spend public money on their own campaign. Now 3 years on with the economy tanking Labour is in real difficulty. The only difference this time is Labour is taking nothing for granted whereas they might have been a bit complacent last time. But the tide is running against them strongly this time and National has not even engaged them yet. I am worried about one thing in that National still seems frightened yes frightened of the Labour attack machine. Attack back please, win the policy argument and bury them.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Portia, I’m not sure that the electorate necessarily want a change only of personnel not policy. The reality is that when you’re at over 50% in the polls, pretty much anything you say has the potential to annoy more of your current supporters than it will attract in new supporters. Better to say nothing. That is something National is doing, not what the electorate want.
I’m pretty sure the electorate actually want a change in policy, but not a change in policy in the Roger Douglas sense. They want a move from social engineering type policy to some asset formation. This asset formation would be focused around the things that NZ needs to become more productive, and modifying the incentives NZers have to take risks, to innovate, to work harder, to invest in themselves. It sounds like John Key has some thoughts on what these might be. I’m also guessing that many on the left will poo-poo them, so much better to announce this type of stuff very close to the election – it means the lefty chorus that is our media won’t really have time to ferret around and find the one expert in the world who thinks it isn’t a good idea.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
tim..tim..
you know as well as i do that clark/cullen are going to monster key/english..
they already do it every questiontime..
in a full debate..i reckon it’ll be ‘behind the sofa between parted fingers/trainwreck’ viewing’..
can’t wait..!
and of course..that’ll see nationals’ ratings heading south..
and then there’s..and then there’s..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Phil, the drugs are addling your brain. You think that Clark and Cullen are monstering him, but he is coming across as reasonable and them as ducking the question, being evasive, and being nasty. Your perceptions are coloured by your political beliefs and the drugs. I suggest we wait and see how things actually go.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
you’ve been watching too many news-edits..
he starts questiontime with an attempted roar..
..and alway ends it looking hunted/haunted..
and the punters will see/smell that fear/humiliation..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
2 problems with this scenario:
NZ1 and the Greens as coalition partners. Yeah right.
Winston has always said he would go with the largest party and no matter how rose coloured your glasses, 31% does not trump 48%.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Whoar, have another P tablet and go to bed.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“and the punters will see/smell that fear/humiliation..”
Like that exhibited by the puffing boilers struggling up the hill for a caucus meeting the other day?
July 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“..Whoar, have another P tablet and go to bed..”
see what i mean..?
he hasn’t got a fucken clue..about much at all..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“..Winston has always said he would go with the largest party..”
no he didn’t..he said he ‘would talk first to the largest party first’..
there is a difference..
if you can’t see it..
get someone to explain..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
You know the govt has completely lost the plot and the media have been along for the ride when “NOT” taking the $140,000 BMW’s to travel 500m makes the front page. The bastards should be on the front page every time they do use their BMW’s to travel less than 1km, not when they don’t.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Portia raises the most interesting point in this thread.
However, I actually think voters this election do want change and not a continuation of the status quo.
The status quo as a policy option has largely held sway since 1993 – that’s fifteen years.
We have seen dramatic spending increases in social policy during a period of unprecedented good economic times – the reality is that there is little to show for this increased expenditure. School principal’s now regularly blackmail the Ministry of Education on Close Up to get basic maintenance done and the non performance in the health system is obvious to anyone who interacts with it. Super has moved off the political agenda because of the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver.
Now that cost of living is dramatically up and the economic times are tougher, voters are looking for not only a change in political personnel but a change in direction.
However National’s political strategy was set following the last election at a time that they thought the status quo was unbeatable (can’t beat em in 2005, so join em in 2008) and the good times would last forever. This was a misreading of the 2005 election but its understandable why new leadership teams want to put distance between them and past leadership.
This is a case were events are overtaking each major party’s ability and willingness to respond. Labour too little too late with its tax cutting; the Nats because their strategy has worked so well thus far.
I would totally discount the chance of Labour winning – the notion that the entire political system collapses back into two-party preferred behaviour is unlikely. This is the basic contention of both commentors.
Commentators on the right supporting National say that victory isn’t in the bag this because it discourages compliancy; those on the left boosting Labour because it motivates (one last big push) and both benefit because a supposed tight contest is good for copy.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
yawn, it is a possible scenario philu. in the same way its possible that mikhael was actually going to give people taxcuts without a political shotgun to his head.
re: looking like stunned mullets, hulun is doing a very good job of that.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
you’ve got it all wrong..chris diack..
labour aren’t going to get back close to national..
but if national fall below that 15% lead..
it’s all on..
it’s called mmp..
phil(whoar,co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
If Labor get in on 30% I will only have two options.
Option 1
Sell the house , buy some land out the wop wops and wait for the s@#t to hit the fan.
Option 2
Apply for a job as a govt bureaucrat, possibly to hold mirrors in the halls of the behive as Mr Cullen strides down the halls of power to deliver the budget , or any other time he or great leader or any of the other narcissists want to “reflect” on their brilliance.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
My job description would be “political reflection”
July 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I think that Chris is talking about the psychology of the campaign – for all purposes labour is getting into snowballschanceinhell territory and is trying to show hope to the people who may be swinging voters by extolling the statistical chances still open.
much like when contemplating NZ crickets chances of winning a test match series.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Philu “in a full debate..i reckon it’ll be ‘behind the sofa between parted fingers/trainwreck’ viewing’..
can’t wait..!”
This is the one time I agree with you!!! I cannot wait to see Key/English go toe to toe with Clark/Cullen on the campain trail. Unfortunately for you its not going to end the way you are hoping. Key/English are already ahead on points and they are not even out of the dressing room.
Talking of trainwreaks… didn’t you boy just shell out the best part of $1.7 Billion to own one?
July 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
grumpyoldhori: “Nah, the Nats would not hand over hundreds of millions of NZ dollars to convicts would they ?”
Why not? Labour do it all the time, through the Corrections Department.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
[Labour] can simply retrospectively validate any breaches of the very confusing laws they passed for themselves.
That’s the scariest thing I’ve read in months. I hadn’t thought of that.
I guess the victor writes the history books, so what’s new eh?
July 13th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
hagues..
have you never watched questiontime..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 13th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
petal: it assumes Labour win. If (when) they lose, what do you reckon will happen then? As I understand it parties cannot be held liable, so a number of individuals have to go down. Although I believe they were careful with the new law that no jail time could be served.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
.. how Labour can win
Simple: Lie, cheat, steal, smear, denigrate etc
(just like last time, only emboldened by having gotten away with so much, for so long, so easily…)
July 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
phil – I watch QT whenever I can. I just love seeing the Ministers getting their butts kicked!
July 13th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The assumption is that Winston is going to get 5% ? That’s a bit generous or is he going to win Tauranga?
But don’t worry as we will be the loco building capital of the world. Then once we dominate that we we’ll start making horse shoes so that we’re prepared for the future and even the stirrup I hear that’s some amazing technological break through.
Such luck to have such a wise government
July 14th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Yes, Winnie is the weakest link isnt he.
What would you do? Take him out of play hard and fast.
NZ First is a cult of personality – if Winnie goes down in the following weeks thats NZ First gone for the count, they’ll be lucky to get 2%.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Labour is dead
Nothing can stop “the shining” now. It’s manifest destiny. Hels is sucking lemons from here to November. Then she gets the boot, the recriminations in Labour begins and National/ACT are sitting pretty.
The question is how low can Labour go? I’d say they will continue to lose support from now until the election. Less than 25% appears to be the best bet. The problem for Labour is the force multiplier of traditional Labour voters just not getting out and voting. They just don’t see what point there is in going to the polling booth to vote for Labour as it stands right now. Some of Labour’s base will look to give their vote to other third parties. National and ACT voters have every motivation to send a message to the current government.
Result, decimation of the Labour vote, a flattering result for National, ACT doing better than it is currently polling and a chance that New Zealand might get serious and start heading in the right direction economically.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:09 am
The interesting question for Labour is what course of action the Reserve bank take on 24 July.
Inflation is going to be at least 5% by the end of the year. As soon as interest rates start falling the NZ currency is going to drop through the floor thus adding even more inflation to the economy.
Labour would love to see the interest rate drop in July. If that doesn’t occur until September then it will be too late for Labour to derive any benefit.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am
You reckon labour would love int rates to drop? they wont get passed on to mortgage holders, petrol prices will rocket even more etc etc. You could argue that labour have primed the pump so much to keep inflation high and remove the chance of an int rate cut before the election, if you were cynical, or labour was really really cynical.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Hooton’s most salient point is that it is not readers of blogs like this or other political junkies who will decide the election. It is the readers of the Hollywood Stars pages.
That is why I am praying that those starry eyed readers will vote National. For if they vote Labour, the future for our country becomes exceedingly bleak.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
There are a number of big big IF’s re Hooten’s theretical analysis.
1) Winnie First gets 5%. He is currently polling at 3.5%, is marred by controversy, has used up all his political capital (inlcuding that in Tauranga, a seat he will be humiliated in again by a newbie) and is yet to find an issue to justify his (ir)relevance. Soon, the media will start questioning his chances and voters will realise the folly in casting a vote his way.
In any event, suppose he pulls it off, Peters likes to be the big smaller party and wont take kindly to the others obtaining greater concessions than he does. It would be much easier to go with National and he can retain his position as Minister.
2) Labour plus Greens equals 41% – again a real stretch on current polling. Voters want change and if anything Labour’s vote is likely to fall slightly below 30%.
3) The Maori Party – assuming they win 7 seats (they may only get 5 or 6), the chances of them cuddling up to Labour are slim. The Maori Party’s dislike for Labour runs much deeper than their concerns about National’s policy differences. National will be willing to concede a lot to ensure their support too if that is what it takes to bury H1 & H2′s reign.
4) The effect of the arrangement would completely undermine MMP since if 51% of voters back National, United and Act, then clearly the will of the people is for change. The smaller parties (like the Greens) need to consider this because MMP ensures a continuation of their political influence in NZ. On this basis, the Greens may take the sensible route and adopt a nuetral position for a change. National can also allow policy concessions, just like Labour has to sure up their neutrality. And if the Greens abstain, then the others will have to look back to National so that a Govt can be formed.
PilU, you have been fooled again. Hooten knows that combination simply wont happen, he is just illustrating a theoretical result to show that the only way to change the govt is to vote National (or Act or United).
I notice that since we last chatted on here PilU and I told you how irrational you are, Centebet’s odds for Labour have gone out from $3 to $3.50. Actions speak louder than words…once again I challenge you to back Labour with $100 of your ‘earned’ money and send us a copy of your confirmation bet slip. How else can we take you seriously..
July 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Technically, it is possible for Labour to win the election with just 31% of the vote, as Matthew Hooton claims. But it is not very likely.
* The scenario which he presents requires the Greens to get 10% of the vote. This is conceivable, but still well ahead of current polling, indeed, I think ahead of any polling since about 2002.
*It also requires NZ First to get 5%. Again, this is ahead of current polls. But not hugely so. It might happen. Remember that people who vote for Winston are not like us: their minds work in strange ways. They are likely to en enraged by the “media conspiracy” that is attempting to smear him over baubles and secret donations etc.
* NZ First having achieved 5% of the vote it also requires that party to back Labour. Mr Peters has promised to negotiate first with the party that gets the most votes. As philu points out, that leaves open the possibility of negotiating with National and then going with Labour anyway. A recent poll suggested that 90% of NZ First supporters want National to lead the next government. So such a move would not go down well. It would be seen as a betrayal as great as 1996, and would likely result in the party’s destruction. So would Mr Peters do this? I wouldn’t put it past him. But it is still a major uncertainty for the Hooten scenario.
* Next, the scenario requires the Maori Party to win all seven Maori seats . . . without increasing their party vote. This is dubious on both counts. There have been polls showing the party ahead in all seven seats, but that was some time ago. The exposure of Derek Fox’s past may damage him in Ikaroa-Rawhiti. The death of Monte Ohia will surely set back the party’s chances in Te Tai Tonga, and Tainui was always the hardest target. Meanwhile, over the past six months Labour has made huge progress on a number of Treaty claims. This has to be helpful for them. As for the party vote, I seem to recall that in 2005 polls significantly underestimated this. The MP is polling higher now than it was then. I suspect that a boost in the party’s support sufficient to snare extra electorates will actually boost the party vote too. Hence I doubt that there will be a 4 seat overhang, as some suggest. 2 maybe.
* The further requirement in this scenario is for the Maori party to then support a Labour-led government. This also seems to be a dubious proposition. Relations between the two are not good right now. The MP desires above all NOT to be trapped into a corner as Labour’s poodle. While I think it unlikely that the MP would join a National-led coalition, it would be very brave/foolhardy for them to back a party that has just been so thoroughly trashed as to get 31% of the vote, over hugely popular (48%) National. Note that the poll mentioned above showed a third of MP supporters wanted a Nat govt. I think it far more likely that the MP would choose a policy of abstention on confidence and supply, and negotiating on support for other measures.
My conclusion is that Hooten is right about the theoretical possibility, but it is very much a long shot.
I also point out that Lab 31 + Green 10 + NZ First 5 + M 3 = 48, the same as National. (Act, UF and Jim A left out in this scenario). Provided NZ First declared its intentions openly before the election, this would be equally as legitimate as a National government, even if many of us would not like it.
** This post was written simultaneously with Glubbster’s. My apologies for any duplication of analysis.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“The only way one can be sure of a change in Government is to vote for the two parties which will definitely not support Labour.”
Hang on, not just two parties (National and Act). Parties don’t just lose votes and leave parliament (like NZ First may do this election), they also gain votes and enter parliament – everyone must start from somewhere. Check out the non-parliamentary parties too.
National is a no-changes-we-just-want-your-votes party at the moment. National won’t change anything unless forced to while forming a coalition. Act is “the liberal party”. Who should the conservatives vote for if they really want change?
The Family Party has a reasonable chance of gaining an electorate seat (Mangere), which would give them a few seats depending what proportion of the party vote they can get. They might have as much chance of getting in as NZ First does based on current polling, and certainly wouldn’t go with Labour. There are a reasonable number of conservative votes there for the taking, based on United Future’s success in 2002 and the subsequent disillusionment of these voters, and based on past votes for Destiny and Christian Heritage. A National-Act-Family coalition would provide good economic expertise to manage the recession (National + Sir Roger), while providing a good balance between liberal and conservative points of view on other issues.
The Kiwi Party is another non-parliamentary party to watch, in my opinion they have less chance of gaining an electorate seat than the Family party but I know other posters here disagree. Family has a lot more policy out so you know where you stand a bit more with them.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
You are dreaming Dennis. Like PilU.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Mr Dennis said: “Who should the conservatives vote for if they really want change?”
Now there’s a nice contradiction in terms. If you mean which party would force a conservative National government to make positive changes quickly, there’s only one party that wants to do that.
If 5% of Matthew’s Hollywood Pages readers (and 20% of Kiwiblog readers) can be persuaded to give their party votes to ACT, then I’m sure National can be persuaded to do many things.
Even the right thing.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“..then I’m sure National can be persuaded to do many things..”
that’d be ‘wodger’..?
..”giving key some spine’..?
i tell you what..you wheel ‘wodger’ out..
and the worm will head south..
(heh..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)