The Transmogrification story
Aaron Bhatnagar has written a book, which political junkies would find fascinating – the inside story of how John Banks came back from his thrashing in 2004 to win by a massive majority in 2007.
Aaron has not yet chosen how he will publish it, but he is blogging some of the chapters. Up so far are Chapter 1 (Well dressed for the collapse), Chapter 4 (The city starts to turn), and Chapter 6 (Polling starts). I had some involvement with the campaign, and it was one of the most fascinating ones I have experienced.
Most campaigns are like most wars – the plan changes the moment the first bullet is fired. The Banks campaign had a strategy and plan that was basically never deviated from. The early polling (which was my role) showed the extent of Hubbard’s unpopularity and that Aucklanders were willing to give John a second go. This meant that a campaign could be developed that pushed a positive message from Banks, and almost ignored Hubbard. There was no need to remind people of how bad Hubbard had been – they already knew it.
One of the reasons I love polling is it does give you a glimpse of what is happening with the public, and the detailed breakdowns by ward showed some amazing turn-arounds with both Banks and C&R being competitive in areas that were traditionally hostile.
Anyway I’ll let Aaron carry on telling the story, but link through from time to time. As I said, most students of politics will find it an interesting read, regardless of whether or not they are a Banks fan or not.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Hmmmmmm, some lessons to be learned in the wider political scene here, perhaps?
August 25th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Whot is worrying is that Aaron seems to subscribe to the Clark / Mallard / Cullen school of electioneering, a temptation that John Key is resisting.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:33 am
DPF: John Banks came back from his thrashing in 2004 to win by a massive majority in 2007.
That is not true. John Banks received 45,387 votes in 2007. In the election John Banks lost, 2004, he received 46,151 votes. In 2007 the supporters of Dick Hubbard stayed home. That’s the story. Same for Aaron of course: he got less votes than in 2004, but won this time. The only one ever to receive a massive majority was Dick Hubbard. It just indicates that for the right leftie, NZ is right open.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
DPF – thanks for the links, and of course, thanks for the advice in 2006/2007!
PhilBest – if there is a message, it’s “stay on message” and find a good contrast of meaning to people.
Peterwn – What is worrying is that you seem to bear a grudge against me, judging by your various posts on usenet and on this blog. Poor Peterwn seems to think it’s defamatory to point out your opponents’ broken promises, bad decisions and questionable judgment. That I was highly successful in doing so only seems to rub more salt into Peterwn’s wounds.
Berend – I agree that Banks’ win in 2007 was handsome, but not “massive” like Hubbard in 2004. What was massive was the swing – Banks went from minus 16% to plus 9.5%, which was the biggest swing in any post ww2 Auckland Mayoral election, perhaps ever.
But the difference is that despite an 8% drop, Banks’ vote held up, while Hubbard’s collapsed by almost half. As for the comments about “right leftie” – Hubbard was not campaigning as a leftie in 2004, his freshness meant he could transcend left vs right and appeal to both camps as a business friendly man with a heart. But in 2007, he had a record to run on, and was found wanting. I’m not sure there is a lesson in there except, sooner or later, you’ll get found out if you don’t actually stand for anything or don’t perform.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
How long does it take to say Hubbad was a blithering meataxe with all the apeal of a rectal probe Aaron?
Not sure how that equates to tactics but in NZ politics being the bigest name caller seems to equate to “political aptitude” by the media so there we go.
If you want to win run against a huge lemon. Worked for Alexander when he invaded Persia and it will work for Key in Nov.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The swing away from Banks between 2001 and 2004 from plus 14% to minus 16% might have been larger.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Aaron – mmm – agreed it is very worrying. By your own admission you ‘opened fire’ on your political opponents almost immdiately after the 2004 council elections, before any alleged broken promises, ‘misjudgments’, etc.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Again Peterwn shows his lack of knowledge about Auckland politics.
In fact, my opponents major broken promises occured month after the 2004 elections. I would refer you to my opponent’s promises that they were “conservative” and “blue” (Action Hobson press release Sept 2004), yet voted to make Bruce Hucker deputy mayor, and then kept him there when Hubbard tried to fire Hucker in early November 2004.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3609240
“But he [Hucker] is is understood to have cemented his hold on council by offering the two Action Hobson councillors, Christine Caughey and Richard Simpson, the powerful policy committees of transport and urban linkages, and environment, heritage and urban form.”
There you are – Action Hobson bought off to support the Auckland political left. That’s why they were criticised not less than one month after their election. The rates broken promises didn’t occur until around February 2005 when annual plan considerations started.
It seems that poor Peterwn doesn’t understand that opposition means pointing out the broken decisions and bad decisions of your opponents. Perhaps he was expecting me to endorse my opponents? How quaint.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Goodness me! A narrative account of local body elections in New Zealand. I really can’t wait!
August 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Banks’ Meadowbank bypass (One New Road to Rule Them All / One new Road that will Fix Everything. Really, it will!)
= FAIL – remember that?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
This from the shining example of success the socialists of New Zealand who now have 680 kiwis moving off shore every day.
Hush now RRM, grown ups talking.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Grown-ups who can put two spelling clangers in the same line?
“How long does it take to say Hubbad was a blithering meataxe with all the apeal of a rectal probe Aaron?”
(One line of superb, measured, grown-up prose!)
August 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Peterwn – thats because my opponents started making big mistakes and breaking promises nearly immediately after the election.
Hubbard and Hucker went to war with each other around 2 weeks after the election, with Hubbard trying to sack Hucker over Hucker’s left-wing social program being announced without Hubbard’s knowledge. So that’s a very good reason for the opposition to point out what a mess things already are.
Secondly, Action Hobson promised to be “conservative” (Press release “Integrity Matters” 22 Sept 2004). Yet they voted to keep the left-liberal Hucker as deputy Mayor when Hubbard tried to sack him. They did so because they had been promised chairmanships by Hucker. (NZ Herald 11 November 2004). So that’s only 2-3 weeks after the election that my opponents broke promises and made bad decisions.
Thirdly, around 2 months after the election, Hubbard dropped the “gay child abuse” clanger, which demonstrated some pretty awful politics on his part. (NZ Herald Dec 10 2004). The Western Bays speedway saga wasn’t good publicity either.
Later, in February 2005, Caughey and Simpson said they broke their promises on rates because “both of us have committees and needed the money” (East and Bays Courier 18 Feb 2005).
So that’s a number of reasons why a political opposition might start being critical weeks and months after their successful opponents got elected.
Evidently you don’t understand that.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I completely agree Aaron, there’s just no way Rodney is going to win Epsom again.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
?? First, wrong!! Second, where did that come from?
August 26th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Reb – AB never said that, nor would he be going down that path again
August 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
No one wants any more naked running in Newmarket Reb.
Think about it.