Labour’s problem with men
National has more support than Labour with men and women. It has a credible 12% lead in the Herald DigiPoll with women and a massive 36% lead amongst men. Labour is down to 25% support amongst men, and the Herald looks at a case in point:
There’s only one solitary Labour voter left in the panelbeating workshop of Auckland Panel and Print _ and he’s leaving the country because he can’t afford a house in New Zealand. …
This illustrates nicely how Labour has lost much of its working class support. Unless Labour can lifts it male vote by 8% or so, it is hard to see that it could win.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
men are from Mars, women are from venus
Cancel the gender surgery for John Key, but keep that frock in the wardrobe
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
How many in the Labour party have ever actually laboured I wonder?
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Mike – they consider putting their shoes on as labouring. Stealing from the public is their reward.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
The domination of rainbow labour and the feminist wing in the Clark Government combined with an aggressive bullying attitude has been a huge turn-off for men. There was a time when Labour through its blue-collar support held a majority of support amongst men and that majority was entrenched. But now the “aggressive women” image combined with “nancy men” has meant men do not like Labour at all but women do not mind this and many rather like it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
GWW – the Labour leader is far more of a “bloke” than John Key, I think you are barking up the wrong tree there.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I keep pointing out that the people who have the most to gain by shooting through to Aussie, are the lowest income earners, because not only is the pay higher, but there is ZERO TAX on the first 15 grand or so of your earnings.
Actually, it has been a long time already that the NZ Labour Party has not represented “the working poor” at all. Or for that matter, ANY “workers” other than bureaucrats.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
That’s annoying. The Labour voter isn’t happy with what Labour has done, but will vote for them and then leave the country?
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Another point to note is that Labour wouldn’t have lasted as long as they have if women hadn’t been voting for them almost as a bloc. A women leader actually has more chances than a man because women tend to be influenced more by gender than men do, and their numbers in the population are, of course, equal. Dumping Jenny Shipley was a huge mistake for the Nats.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Kind of a pointless discussion in many ways. When National was down in the polls, the message was that they couldn’t win women voters, and they needed to become more attractive to women. Now Labour are down, and they need to become more attractive to men? Seems to me that a greater percentage of women vote for Labour, a greater percentage of men for National. The numbers move in lockstep – more voters for National = both more men and more women. Breaking it down by gender isn’t interesting unless the change is different by gender.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Saturday November 8th Probable election date
Only 98 days away now
The countdown has begun.
I sense that more and more people are becoming too embarrassed to admit to possible voting Labour.
Such possible voting is seen as mark of shame, slothful thinking and the sign of being a loser.
Men don’t want to be losers. Testosterone demands struggling and winning.
Real men eat meat
Real men play rugby
Real men win
Real men vote National
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
This seemed well illustrated when Stephen franks went door knocking in Wellington Central and unwittingly banged on Heather Simpson’s door!
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
oh yippee! Now Labour are tearing families apart by setting up political divisions based on gender. Brothers against sisters, wives against husbands, just generally men against women. Hey, maybe they could simplify it by researching which hair colour types vote for which party or maybe even eye colour. Then we could have yet another fuckin’ moronic stereotype to rattle on about.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
My 78 year old father god bless him has ALWAYS voted labour but says for the fist time in his life not this time.I seriously doubt he will vote national,however just shows how out of touch labour is with the old labour voters.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
The gummint, unfortunately, lost sight of their traditional support base when Hulun and the wymyn shifted focus onto urban hipsters and the chattering middle classes (which is a demographic that they could asscoiate with, unlike ‘those smelly blue collars’).
Not everyone is, or wants to be, as urbane as the Wellington Central latte sipper *thinks* they are.
It’s got such a ‘New York loft feel’ – Yeah Right.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“A women leader actually has more chances than a man because women tend to be influenced more by gender than men do”
Ha!
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Expat makes a good point. Key has worked long and hard to remove the stench of elitism from National. It’s the kiss of death to say voters are too dumb to know what is good for them. Many ACT and libertarian type people imply this. ‘Smelly brown people’ and so on.
Another offense is to claim women should support Clark simply because we share a similar anatomy. The same mistake was made with Hillary Clinton. In my feminism I’m allowed to choose my allegiances based on criteria other than shared gender.
In my feminism, men do not get to be automatically wonderful just because they’re men. And women don’t get to be automatically wonderful just because they’re women and we’re supposed to be working on some kind of “sisterhood.” I’ve been knifed in the back by too many rich white yuppie “sisters” in the course of my life to trust them blindly. I’ve also seen too many organisations that were completely disrupted by their combative operational style.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“This illustrates nicely how Labour has lost much of its working class support”
Yeah – despite wages dropping for working class people in the 1990s because of National’s Employment Contracts Act and benefit cuts, they’re polling well with a “change” message. Too bad they can’t actually be honest about what that change really means.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Nome you forget we are talking about the future, now and the recent lead-up to now, not about reforms to new zealands structural economic problems of the past few decades.
I guess thats another reason people are switching off liaboring – The electorate has moved on, only liarboring havent twigged on yet.
As Ruth notes, radicalism easily turns to fundamentalism and blinkered thinking.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Anyone prepared to wager that a burly fellow from the EPMU will be visiting a certain Auckland panelbeating shop on Monday?
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Very good point Inv2 – be a great story wouldn’t it?!
“EPMU intimidates workers”
Anyone from the media here?
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
>There’s only one solitary Labour voter left in the panelbeating workshop of Auckland Panel and Print _ and he’s leaving the country because he can’t afford a house in New Zealand.
I work for a government department, and I’d have a hard time finding anyone at work who’ll admit to supporting Labour.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
roger Nome:
“….they’re polling well with a “change” message. Too bad they can’t actually be honest about what that change really means”
Actually I don’t think the Nats are pushing the time for a change thing at all… its a natural phenomenon .. they are just cashing in on it.
A Change in Ministerial personnel with National actually means not much change in existing policy settings. Probably insufficient to scare stay at home Labour voters out to vote Labour again.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hasn’t Huluns easy going charm worked its magic yet?
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
True Chris D (3:24pm) – I think the biggest difference will be the change from a corrupt Labour administration to an honest National government.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Ruth:
I would argue you’re way off base there. There are many examples of ACT policies that are quite the opposite – the general philosophy is that most if not all people can get on with their lives without government intervention, and that intervention should be reserved for those who genuinely need it. To give examples.
1. Education. ACT policies include things like school choice and school vouchers. Labour policies include zoning and no choice. ACT believes that if you give the poorest people the choice as to where they send their kids for school, they’ll make a good choice (studies show that even the “worst” parents want more for their kids, and will send them to a school that helps to achieve that). There is also a lot of evidence that different educational styles suit different kids – some kids need discipline, others need a lot of opportunity to follow their fancy. ACT policies allow this. Labour believes that the people are too stupid to make their own choices, and that everyone should have a one size fits all education – you should go to the public school nearest you and you should have no or little choice over the education that school offers.
2. Justice. ACT believes you should stick to laws on things where people are impacting each other negatively. If parents believe that a smack is good parenting, then they should be allowed to do so. If parents believe that there should be no physical discipline of children, they can do that too. When smacking turns into abuse, ACT believes we should throw the book at the abuser. But at levels below abuse (i.e. a smack) there are many conflicting studies, and reasonable people can disagree about whether it is a good idea or not. ACT thinks that, in that situation, the govt shouldn’t be making the decision for you. Labour thinks that parents are too stupid to make this choice, and that parents are too stupid to know the difference between a smack and abuse. Therefore, they criminalised all smacking.
I think if you look objectively you’ll find the left are the group that most commonly treat citizens as they are stupid. The bit that particularly annoys me is that the upper middle class do-gooders who like to vote for Labour generally think that these policies should be applied to “those other people” – but often have no desire at all for the policies to apply to them personally. In short, they think they are smart enough to make their own choices, but all “those other people” aren’t, and should have their choices dictated for them. It drives me quite insane when they can’t see that “those other people” are just people like them, and don’t really need busy bodies telling them how to run their lives.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Paul makes a good point.
If you treat people like they’re stoopid you end up with a nation full of morons in no time.
What I can’t stand is when I’m out with my kids and become aware of “eyes” on me judging my performance as a father.
Its not alot of people but you sure know when one is around, and ocasionally they get quite intrusive.
These people are like the hitler youth, looking for law breakers to nark on to nanny state.
There will be a alot more of these busy bodie types if we don’t shed some of this beurocracy, dobbing in people for fixing their house to diciplining kids in a politically incorrect fashion.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
Do the Labour Party actually know what a real man is?
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 am
peter davis
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
black helicopters circling your house now.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
# expat (663) Add karma Subtract karma +1 Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
“black helicopters circling your house now.”
Ahhhh I think that should be “African American” Helicopters you insensitive racist you…..:-0
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
When I arrived in NZ a 4th generation sucessful business man told me ” it took men 150 years to create the NZ we currently have and it will take women 10 years to destroy it” I now understand what he was getting at – when women in charge like H1H2 Wilson and King act in such male biased ways they become blind to the requirement of appointing the best person for the job rather than appointing by sex.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Ruth: “”Expat makes a good point. Key has worked long and hard to remove the stench of elitism from National. It’s the kiss of death to say voters are too dumb to know what is good for them. Many ACT and libertarian type people imply this. ‘Smelly brown people’ and so on”"
Are you implying that ACT people “imply” what you said above, that we assume people are dumb and that we refer to them as “smelly brown people” etc?
I have never heard such nonsense in relation to how anybody I know would refer to other people like that, across the political spectrum. Nice attempt to call us elitest though – if anything, the far left are the worst at doing that. They hate almost everybody (rich, hard workers, businesses, capitalism, go getters, free thinkers)… everybody ACT and Libz actively love.