The Lower North Island Seats
November 13th, 2008 at 4:32 am by David Farrar
Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.
Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.
Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.
Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.
Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.
Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.
In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.
Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.
Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.
Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.
Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.
Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.
Related posts:
- The Central North Island Seats
- The Lower South Island Seats
- The Upper South Island Seats
- The Central South Island seats
November 13th, 2008 at 7:09 am
The lower north island red blocs, aka the Latte Seats
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Nice to see Palmerston North coloured BLUE!
Vote:Does someone have inside knowledge on the special votes changing the election night result?
“Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” – Martin Luther King (commenting on the NZ election results)
November 13th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Sigh… hindsight. Next time I hope the Greens don’t put a candidate up
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“Red Blocs, aka the latte seats”???
FFS, the issues some of you people have with accepting alternative political views are just ridiculous!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Malcolm Plimmer and Stephen Franks must be feeling a bit gutted. They did what National’s president has been urging all their candidates to do for a long time, and won the party vote for National. But whoever does the list for National pushed them so far down National’s List that they ended up not getting in. Did this happen anywhere else?
DF, it appears from your previous seat breakdowns that it has not, yet a heap of candidates who got nowhere near winning the party vote are now MPs. National claims to champion individual achievement and reward for effort, but what happened here? Do National’s principles not count when it comes to its List?
[DPF: The party vote in a seat is the result of many factors - the candidate being just one. I agree it is a real shame Stephen did not get in]
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory”
It would be inappropriate for me to attempt to establish a causal link there.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Turlough, Wellington got dumped on in favour of Auckland (as per usual) and the drive for less middle aged white males.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The people who voted for Grant Robertson ahead of Stephen Franks are an unusual lot.
Vote:Rarely do people of Franks’ ability make themselves available for public office.
His loss is New Zealand’s loss.
Us New Zealanders need somebody like Franks to peruse and question the output of the law draftsmen. I cannot find any of the 122 that can do that in a highly intelligent manner.
Somebody told me it was a queer result, but I could never comment on such a thing.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Labour did relatively better in the Wellington seats than in any other part of the country. One reason is that public servants have done very well out of Labour over the last nine years – with big increases in numbers and pay. National’s stated desire to cap numbers and cut back on bureaucracy would not have gone down well with these people. A further, related, reason is that these people work closely with ministers and get to respect them (if they are competent).
I note however, that the highly competent National administration of 1960-72 made steady gains in Wellington, perhaps for the reason above. It is possible that the city may warm a little toward National in 2011.
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Ross Nixon
My sentiments exactly!!
Agree with Farrar about the Horowhenua not being, by and large, natural National territory, at least in the towns. The rural vote is decidedly National though and the increasing Kapiti population would be decidedly National voting, so it will always be a keenly contested seat.
Being a Shannon boy and with my ear to the ground, my breakdown would be that the younger set have been leaning towards National a bit. Middle aged voters have shifted slightly towards National whilst still being predominately Labour, while the elderly remain loyal to their parties of choice. The Maori vote would have definitely seen a chunk of Labour votes go to the Maori Party (still a sizable Maori majority to Labour though). This is probably how it went for most of the Horowhenua townships.
A slight shift in the vote towards National in the north of the electorate along with the mainly National voting southern parts allowed Guy to overturn Hughes. These two young guys could battle it out for quite a few elections yet!!
Vote: