Young on boundaries

October 24th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Audrey Young writes in NZ Herald:

The electoral gods could well be shining on Conservative Party leader .

One of the two biggest areas of growth in Auckland has been in his own backyard on the North Shore and that means a new electorate seat could be created virtually around him.

If National stood a low-profile candidate rather than a heavyweight like List MP Steven Joyce, and Prime Minister John Key gave voters a steer in the right directions, Craig could be well-placed to take a new seat.

That would provide National with a new potential support partner to replace or supplement the ones that have been self-destructing since the last election: whose leader resigned as a minister last week, United Future whose leader Peter Dunne was forced to resign in June, and the Maori Party.

As I have said before National have five potential support partners – ACT,, United Future, Maori Party, and NZ First. What we don’t know is how many of them will make it, how many can actually work with National, and how many will National need to be in the running to form a third term Government.

Key this week dismissed New Zealand First leader Winston Peters as someone who talked in more riddles than the Mad Hatter. Hardly the behaviour of a Prime Minister who expects to be propped up by Peters after next year’s election.

Key called it straight. It is far from certain that National will change its stance on NZ First. I’m not saying they won’t change – just that it is dangerous to make that assumption at this stage. I expect a decision would be made around the middle of 2014.

There will definitely be one new electorate created in Auckland after the census figures were announced last month and Craig told the Herald yesterday that he would most likely stand in the seat if it is in his patch – he lives on the border of East Coast Bays and Rodney.

“It would be very, very nice for us. We know it’s a good area for us. It would be very nice if the seat ended up here,” he said.

“If it works out that they go for the electorate that has grown the largest, which is Upper Harbour, and put a new electorate in there, I’m going to be living in it so it’s going to be all very convenient.”

If the Conservatives are polling enough to get four or more MPs, then centre-right voters in a new seat could well vote tactically.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, too, is known to be considering standing in an Auckland seat – and the new seat would have to be a possibility or a vacancy if Murray McCully were to shift to the list from East Coast Bays – a repeated rumour.

When asked to comment on the Conservatives and the new seat Peters said: “Elephants don’t run round the forest stomping on ants.”

Peters was too chicken to stand in a seat in 2011, so I don’t expect he will risk failure.

National pollster and Kiwiblog commentator David Farrar says things are looking good for the Conservatives.

“Even before you get into any political deals, the way the census has happened, actually, is very happy for the Conservatives, assuming that’s where the new seat is.”

Farrar also believes there is no need for the “cup of tea” photo opportunity to send signals to voters.

“Generally voters, if they want a centre-right or centre-left Government, can work out what’s the smart thing to do. So if there was a seat and Colin Craig was standing for it and they are polling 3 per cent in the polls and the candidate for National is a worthy but low-profile person, you could well see Conservatives do very well there without needing any sort of arrangement.”

Centre-right voters tend to be pretty intelligent. They don’t want a Government that will tax and spend, borrow more, nationalise companies etc. They will vote for minor party candidates if that helps stop a Labour/Green/Mana Government.

Farrar believes that if Banks lost his judicial review against going to trial and then lost the trial as well, he would not only be kicked out of Parliament as required under the law, it would finally destroy Act as well.

“I think the brand would be too damaged.”

A party can not survive its leader and sole MP losing his seat due to a conviction over electoral matters. Note I am not saying I think Banks will lose. Andrew Geddis has a very useful blog post on this issue which is worth reading. The key para for me:

I can’t for the life of me see why Banks would have sat down and thought something along the lines of “Dotcom and Sky City have given me all this money, but I don’t want anyone to know that they did and so I’ll deliberately lie about where it came from in my return even though I know that it is completely illegal to do so.” He was, after all, the losing candidate  in the mayoral race. Why would anyone have cared who gave him money, and why would he feel the need to make a decision to hide its source after the campaign was over? So any sort of claim that Banks deliberately or maliciously sought to evade the requirements of the Local Electoral Act strikes me as deeply implausible.

This is key – Banks had lost. There was little, if any gain, in not declaring the donations.

 

Tags: , , ,

69 Responses to “Young on boundaries”

  1. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    I’d be surprised if National voters fall for the cup of tea thing again.

    Colin Craig is a bit too weird, even for your average Tory.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    But the Conservatives are crazies.

    According to the luminaries John Key and Peter Dunne.

    How could National be in coalition with the Conservatives and still retain any credibility?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Ill be voting Craig if I get the chance.

    Party vote National.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. anonymouse (715 comments) says:

    Peters was too chicken to stand in a seat in 2011, so I don’t expect he will risk failure

    He is also very happily ensconced in St Mary’s Bay, meaning if he stood anywhere other than Auckland Central, he would rightly be called a carpetbagger :),

    http://beehive.govt.nz/release/act-completes-stage-one-election-sham

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Than (473 comments) says:

    If John Key endorses the Conservative then he has lost my vote.

    I find the policies of Labour and the Greens completely unacceptable; they would cause massive economic damage that would ripple through to massive social damage. But I also find Colin Craig and his religiously driven conservatism equally unacceptable. If the choices are Labour+Greens or National+Conservative then I probably wouldn’t bother voting.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    “If the choices are Labour+Greens or National+Conservative then I probably wouldn’t bother voting.”

    Good, the country is in enough trouble from the activities of misguided National Party voters.

    Make damn sure you stay home and maybe some common sense will apply for once.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. questlove (242 comments) says:

    But the Conservatives are religious crazies.

    Fixed

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    John Key takes a liberal view on moral issue so does the Labpur a Party and the Greens. There is a gap in the political spectrum for the Conservatves. But Natoonal cannot expect to have their support for nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    Uncle Farrar declares – “Centre-right voters tend to be pretty intelligent. They don’t want a Government that will tax and spend, borrow more, nationalise companies etc. They will vote for minor party candidates if that helps stop a Labour/Green/Mana Government”. But uncle Roy Morgan’s polls think otherwise. A Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana government will take over in 2014 and rule until 2023 election whether you like it or not. NZ has too many loose screws…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    If Craig does a bit of media training he may be able to keep his feet out of his mouth long enough in the lead up to the election and not scare the middle ground voters that Nat have grabbed out from under Liarbores feet in the last 2 elections.
    With a electorate lifeline CCCP would not look like a wasted vote to some that may want to vote that way and I would pick them getting upward of 4%. Be interesting to see if CCCP can steal the PI religious voters from Lairbore.
    They got close to 3% in a 2 month campaign in ’11 ?

    I think Dunne and Banks will be back next term.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    As one who resides in the area where a new seat will no doubt be created I am sure other like minded and intelligent voters will give their constituency vote to Colin Craig and party vote to the Nats to ensure JK doesn’t have to go to that appalling OAP Luigi and prostrate himself like Klark did. Perish the thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “I think Dunne and Banks will be back next term.”

    Agree. Dunne loves the cash and Banks? who knows what drives him..

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Will be interesting to see Peters in the lead up to ’14, he just aint the man he was. The booze has taken its toll.

    Lets hope for WinstonFirst to get around 4% :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    “If Craig does a bit of media training”

    Fuck the media. That is the whole damn problem.

    Politicians spend too much time worrying about the prog media and not enough time worrying about what their constituents want.

    That’s why we have a parliament about 60 degrees more progressive than the population are happy with.

    As Craig’s rise shows.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Questlove you are a dishonourable cheat and liar, for on a forum like this you do not take what others have said and alter it. Otherwise that small chance of having a reasonable discussion here will be further eroded.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    Why do people think the Conservatives don’t want to “tax and spend, borrow more, nationalise companies” – have they said that? I can live with the religious aspect but only if they are really solid on economic policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Yep….keep your made up God out of the Government of this country. Religious nonsense is as bad as socialist nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. BlueSilver (26 comments) says:

    I also live in the area where the new seat may be created. I suspect there will be a fair few National supporters (myself included) who will find it very very difficult to vote for Colin Craig with their constituency vote and it will be much harder to convince people to do this than it has been for Banks and Dunne. This is despite the implications for the overall result. I know a fair number of socially liberal, economically conservative voters who feel the same way. I am really hoping not to be faced with this dilemma.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    ‘Yep….keep your made up God out of the Government of this country. Religious nonsense is as bad as socialist nonsense.’

    Objectivist nonsense that includes endorsement of pedophilia is as bad as either.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Smith: Does this lunatic leftie Smith not realise anything is better than the shower of shit he represents!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. srylands (410 comments) says:

    “A Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana government will take over in 2014 and rule until 2023 election whether you like it or not. NZ has too many loose screws…”

    There are a couple of scenarios:

    1. The incoming government really does do what I fear (rich prick taxes, NZ Power, Green economy subsidies, welfare proliferation, RBNZ wrecked) – this might mean it is a one term government. BUT

    2. My concern is that even if it does mad things, there are now so many New Zeanders dependent on the state, who pay no net tax, and have no idea about economics, that they could wreck the economy and still get re-elected. I hope I am wrong. It is the Argentinian scenario – a state of economic chaos becomes normal, the rich pricks leave (or park their money off shore) and that is the new normal.

    An Australian Finance Minister in the 1908s (Peter Walsh) remarked that without good policy Australia was at risk of going down the “Argentinian road”. That didn’t happen. But it is going to happen here.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    FOR FUCK SAKE

    IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ANY GREAT DEGREE WHAT THE POLICIES OF THE CONSERVATIVES ARE.

    If you want a strategy to break the nat/ Labour prog orthodoxy, then the Conservatives or 1LAW4ALL are your opportunity.

    If you are happy with the prog status quo then keep voting for National or Labour.

    Simple choice.

    Getting all navel gazing and emotional over what the Conservatives stand for is at this stage completely missing the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. radvad (765 comments) says:

    I have seen no evidence they are fiscal conservatives. For starters they oppose partial asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. radvad (765 comments) says:

    As for all this “religious” paranoia, lets get rid of the welfare state immediately. After all Michael Joseph Savage introduced it as applied Christianity at its inception.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    “A Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana government will take over in 2014 and rule until 2023 election whether you like it or not. NZ has too many loose screws…”

    I think it is highly unlikely NZF will get more MPs than the Watermelons. If that is the case there is a far higher chance that NZF will go with National or stay on the cross benches than play second fiddle to the watermelons.

    If Winston demands that conscience votes on moral issues are decided by binding referendum which major party is most like to agree to this to be in power? I would say National.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nostalgia-NZ (5,195 comments) says:

    ‘He was, after all, the losing candidate in the mayoral race. Why would anyone have cared who gave him money, and why would he feel the need to make a decision to hide its source after the campaign was over? So any sort of claim that Banks deliberately or maliciously sought to evade the requirements of the Local Electoral Act strikes me as deeply implausible.’

    Equally why would he forget ‘significant’ details of his relationship with Dotcom. Additionally, who knows what his political aspirations were beyond being the Mayor of Auckland or how he might have felt those donations may have sat in that picture if they were public knowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    Winston will not stand in 2014. This is why he has finally got around to thinking about a deputy leader and will announce one next year. He will not stand because he will not be able to stand due to ill health. His physical and mental deterioration are plain to the eye and ear. He will not humiliate himself by appearing frail in public. NZFirst will once again fail to reach 5% and National will garner approximately 46% of 4%- the wasted NZF votes ie another 1.9%

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    I’ll also be voting Conservative, along with heaps of other Nats. They are far from crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Another commentary on the A. Young boundaries piece. Bye Bye Gucci-land.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/conservatives-national-2014-the-media-catch-up/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Super Guest (16 comments) says:

    The Conservatives oppose the selling of state owned liabilities, foreigners owning “large” (however that’s defined) areas of land, and have stupid views on free trade. They’re not that different from the left fiscally. So how anyone who considers themselves Right wing could vote for them is beyond me.

    Unless they’re the types of knuckle draggers who care whether or not gays get married or chicks can get abortions. Which I suspect their supporters are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fentex (973 comments) says:

    Banks had lost. There was little, if any gain, in not declaring the donations.

    I find this thinking lacks imagination, and as a logical conclusion seems premised on the idea Banks wouldn’t run again. If he does then anything is always relevant to his future and motivations.

    Not to mention there’s seldom much sense or reason behind criminal behaviour that leads to convictions. If people were so rational we’d have no crime worth reporting.

    Personally I think it more likely these facts speak to a guilty conscience – knowing quid pro quo is implicit in large donations it’s obvious hiding them would be instinctive for many to protect a reputation, temporary set backs in a electoral result not being important.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    I read the CCCP policy doc before the last election; in policy terms, it’s a new NZ First, except with a personally honest, uncharismatic leader.

    It’s anti land sales to overseas persons and anti asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    ‘He will not humiliate himself by appearing frail in public. NZFirst will once again fail to reach 5% and National will garner approximately 46% of 4%- the wasted NZF votes ie another 1.9%’

    Without Winston NZF don’t get 4%, they don’t get above 2%.

    NZF and the CCCP are fishing in the same pool, disaffected white people.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Odakyu-sen (646 comments) says:

    The CCCP is back?! (Damn those Soviets!)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird
    Winston, if he goes with Labour, would be THIRD fiddle after the watermelons. Norman would extract a lot from Cunliffe as payback for Clark’s humiliation of the Greens. Winston wants baubles and influence and I’m not sure what in that regard Cunliffe and Norman would offer him. It all depends on if he’s kingmaker or not and manages to cross the threshold. There won’t be a tea cup tape controversy to give him a tail wind in 2014 and voters are wise to his xenophobic rants.

    The Conservatives are only really conservative in the social sense. ACT was the only economically conservative party but I fear even if Banks prevails in his case that the brand is fatally tainted. I must confess that, while sympathetic to the Conservatives’ quest and certainly its obvious assist to National, I find Colin Craig insipid and unconvincing. In the modern era of sound bites and TV presence, he’s doesn’t have the media savvy of Peters or Norman or even Cunliffe. That said the likely new North Shore electorate would be a good fit and the brand Conservative seems good for at least 2 – 3% and that’s better than ACT managed last time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    I don’t rate Colin Craig or his party. I think he’s potentially a bigger liability than Banks or (shudder) Peters First.
    The Nats should steel themselves and hope for Maori Party support, or be prepared for life in opposition.

    Oh and ignore anyone who uses the term “Tory”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wiseowl (891 comments) says:

    It amazes me reading the response from dorklanders over CC.
    There is a New Zealand outside Orkland and many dissatisfied National supporters.
    The Conservatives have replaced National NOT nzfirst .The National Party used to be the conservative party.Not any more.
    And this continued religious linkage with CC is a load of crap.It just backs up the progressive medias continuing smear tactics .

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Odakyu-sen (646 comments) says:

    I didn’t like some of the on-line research polls into voting behavior that I participated in last year.

    They (from my selective memory) tended to ask questions like:
    Which of the following parties will you give your party vote to in the next election:
    National? Labour? Green? ACT? Māori? Progressive? United Future? NZ First? Mana? Other party?

    Or worse still: National? Labour? Green? ACT? Māori? Progressive? United Future? NZ First? Mana? McGillicuddy Serious Party? Other party?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Than (473 comments) says:

    I’ve just been looking at the results from Epsom in 2011. I don’t think Colin Craig can win a seat, even with a nod from National.

    In Epsom in 2011 John Banks got 15,825 votes compared with 13,574 National’s Paul Goldsmith. If slightly over 1,100 people (1 in 24 right-leaning voters) had changed their mind Banks wouldn’t have got in. Craig is a polarising enough figure that at least that many people would refuse to vote for him.

    He might have a shot if National pulled their candidate from an electorate entirely. But just asking the voters wouldn’t be enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Great to see all of the progs who have predicted for so long that the Conservatives would never have a chance getting all sweaty and nervous.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Than (473 comments) says:

    It’s a natural reaction Red – when somebody suggests something terrible might happen, you get nervous.

    But having looked up the facts I’m feeling much calmer now. The numbers are right there, he doesn’t have a shot unless National actively gifts him the electorate. This is just journalists struggling for column inches

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Fisiani @ 4.39

    Utter bollocks.

    Peters will stand even if they need to jump start him every morninjg to do so. He wants the limelight and revenge. It will be his swansong. He can quite possibly have the last laugh on NZ politics and fuck the country for 3 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    “This is just journalists struggling for column inches”

    Maybe, personally I think its more likely they’re trying to tag Key with Craig to help Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Michael Williamson and John Key are two progs who have turned a lot of people right off National.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. BlueSilver (26 comments) says:

    Reading all of these comments from Red, thinking of changing my sign in name to “Prog and Proud”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    If you want a strategy to break the nat/ Labour prog orthodoxy, then the Conservatives or 1LAW4ALL are your opportunity.

    Red, you closet Statist.

    Fancy you coming out after all this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    If 1LAW4ALL meant one law for all and was just not anti Maori I might support it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Super Guest (16 comments) says:

    “Great to see all of the progs who have predicted for so long that the Conservatives would never have a chance getting all sweaty and nervous.”

    Please, considering their policies line right up with Labour and NZ First you supporting them makes you the prog and a massive hypocrite, which is common within the tinfoil hat community. Despite your hysterical textual diarrhea to the contrary. More than likely you’re compensating for being 96 and living off the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    If 1LAW4ALL meant one law for all and was just not anti Maori I might support it.

    Today, they’ve quoted Winston, because he’s said something just vaguely anti-Maori establishment. Tomorrow they’ll quote Cunliffe or Collins depending on who gets the first kick in. The day after they’ll decide to quote Hone because he mentioned his ancestors had a fight with the hapu of the fish n chip owner down the road and he think’s they’re ripping him off ’cause of the cost of the oysters. And all the while someone will pipe up in the comments “they’re all PART-Maori, the shameless half-castes”

    Centre-right voters tend to be pretty intelligent. They don’t want a Government that will tax and spend, borrow more, nationalise companies etc

    Wow. And I though centre-right voters were humble and downspoken, not like those righteous chardonnay swilling moralisers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Shazzadude (529 comments) says:

    “Centre-right voters tend to be pretty intelligent. They don’t want a Government that will tax and spend, borrow more, nationalise companies etc. They will vote for minor party candidates if that helps stop a Labour/Green/Mana Government.”

    If your theory about their intelligence levels were true, Colin Craig would have romped home in Rodney.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    All of a sudden, 112,800 votes (5%) for the Conservative Party is looking very, very do-able, with or without an electoral seat. Maybe Aesop was right: slow and steady may indeed win the race.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Than
    I agree with your assessment re an accommodation between National and Colin Craig. Banks didn’t really romp in but then I wonder how much the silly cup of tea furore knocked his likely majority back due to Banks’ rather poor media performances in the wake of the media firestorm. Let’s be honest Colin Craig doesn’t have the media firepower of Banks notwithstanding his ducking for cover post the cup of tea meeting with Key. Also John Key and much of National’s urban MPs are pretty socially liberal and would find Craig to be too right wing and would worry about how a coalition with such a socially conservative partner would go over with the squishy centre.

    National would essentially have to decide to throw the seat by standing a nobody and at this point in time I don’t see that happening. A replay of Epsom where Goldsmith put up a good fight is more likely. That said, if polling by mid next year sees NZ 1st and the MP as clearly being Key’s only pathway to a majority then political necessity will take precedence. It’s early days yet with Cunliffe – the economy is improving and the promises Cunliffe had to make to get elected by the unions and Labour activists plus the Greens nutty policies that they are trying to hide make for a target rich environment for the Nats to present as a threat to the growing recovery. Ousting incumbents when an economy is growing has proven to be a tough ask across western democracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Than (473 comments) says:

    That said, if polling by mid next year sees NZ 1st and the MP as clearly being Key’s only pathway to a majority then political necessity will take precedence.

    Even in this scenario, dealing with the Conservatives is not necessarily a good option. Colin Craig actively puts off as many votes as he gains. If National making a deal with the Conservatives costs them 1-3% of their own party vote from people uncomfortable with Craig, in exchange for an N% chance of an ally with 2-4% of the party vote, then on average they haven’t actually gained very much if anything.

    But for all the concern about National’s lack of coalition partners, I think they have a good chance of being able to govern alone. As you say the economy is doing well, most people are reasonably happy with the status quo. There is no mood for the radical change that the Greens and Labour’s activist base are pushing for. Once the election campaign starts to put policy platforms under the microscope this will be reflected in the polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Than: Are you able to recall when a Party was able to govern alone, within an MMP environment? It looks to me that, despite the attempted pigeon-holing by the media of the Conservative Party, their political “church” seems to have some pretty broad appeal. If the reported National internal polling has the Conservative Party at somewhere around 4% already, then the debates probably pretty much over in terms of the “will they, won’t they make it to 5%” issue. If National realise this, then it may not be tea that they need to purchase: it may instead be a sizable quantity of humility and humble pie, as they realise, as Audrey Young opines, that the “electoral gods” aren’t just smiling on the Conservative Party, they are breaking into wide, wide grins.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    then the debates probably pretty much over in terms of the “will they, won’t they make it to 5%” issue.

    The debate is far from over. The election is a year away, much could happen in that time, for the Conservative Party and for all the other parties. Act, UF and NZF have been written off for how many elections already? There is no guarantee for any of them.

    The Conservative Party has to do something unprecedented in modern politics, reach a very high 5% threshold. They have to hope that Colin Craig doesn’t make too many mistakes. And even if they make it in via an electorate or the party vote they are still dependent on enough of National’s vote surviving to have any chance of being a part of the next Government.

    You just have to look at the change for Labour over the last two months to see how quickly political support can change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Than (473 comments) says:

    Are you able to recall when a Party was able to govern alone, within an MMP environment?

    True, but we’ve only had 6 elections under MMP so that isn’t a huge amount of data. And the demise of right-wing minor parties assists National, since it picks up most of their votes.

    I’m well aware National able to govern alone would be a first under MMP. I still think it’s a realistic possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    Just a point to those who object to CP social policy… I say, get over it and vote in whatever way supports a government that’s as economically right-wing as we can (i.e. National led). Politicians don’t set the social agenda… society does. They just react. At worst, the CP would slow the speed of reaction for a while. Politicians do shape the economy though. Base your vote on what politicians can control, not what they wish they could.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. thePeoplesFlag (245 comments) says:

    it is hilarious watching National’s chief online spinner frantically calling for the gaming of the electoral system for narrow partisan gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Than
    I’m with Peter George on this. The likelihood of National governing alone is very slim. They’d have to pick up their polling by 5 – 6% not impossible but it would require a semi meltdown with Cunliffe.

    Key would be looking very carefully at CP policy and Colin Craig’s pronouncements. I still think its a net gain for National but not the panacea of their coalition challenges. Craig winning the new seat will absolutely rely on a National accommodation.

    thePeoplesFlag
    Of course the never try and game any system for narrow partisan gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    *Of course the left never..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Several points to consider about the Cons:

    1. Colin Craig has never held public office
    2. The Cons oppose asset sales, the core of National’s fiscal policy
    3. Where is all the money for this endless plethora of binding referenda going to come from?
    4. Remember 1996? What if the Cons scare social liberal voters away from the Nats?
    5. Given the Cons’ ludicrous anti-Treaty stance, could they work with the Maori Party?
    6. Are NZF and the Cons actually after the same voter share? Might they cancel each other out?
    7. Shouldn’t someone do a thorough background check of Con candidate backgrounds?
    8. Can Colin Craig actually win a constituency?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Redbaiter (8,810 comments) says:

    Hey Chutney, you really think anyone who supported Minto in the Auckland Mayoralty has any right or reason to presume to tell Conservatives how to vote?

    How about you keep your shallow single perspective opinions to yourself until you develop some broader understandings and a bit of tolerance for ideas outside the realm of the destructive liberal orthodoxy you embrace?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Hi Chardonnayguy:

    Several points to consider about the Cons:

    1. Colin Craig has never held public office:

    A: Could you please reference as to where this a mandated pre-requisite to be elected to Parliament?

    2. The Cons oppose asset sales, the core of National’s fiscal policy

    A: So how might this prevent a working relationship between National & the Conservatives?

    3. Where is all the money for this endless plethora of binding referenda going to come from?

    A: How many referenda have we had since the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act was passed?

    4. Remember 1996? What if the Cons scare social liberal voters away from the Nats?

    A: What if they don’t?

    5. Given the Cons’ ludicrous anti-Treaty stance, could they work with the Maori Party?

    A: Which bit is the ludicrous bit?

    6. Are NZF and the Cons actually after the same voter share? Might they cancel each other out?

    A: It appears that the Conservatives have the upper hand on this one at the moment.

    7. Shouldn’t someone do a thorough background check of Con candidate backgrounds?

    A: Sure – lets make this a pre-requisite for all candidates across all parties though.

    8. Can Colin Craig actually win a constituency?

    A: It would appear so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    1. Colin Craig has never held public office:

    A: Could you please reference as to where this a mandated pre-requisite to be elected to Parliament?

    A2: Given this lack of experience, why should we chance it?

    2. The Cons oppose asset sales, the core of National’s fiscal policy

    A: So how might this prevent a working relationship between National & the Conservatives?

    A2: At least ACT and United Future are safer bets from this perspective!

    3. Where is all the money for this endless plethora of binding referenda going to come from?

    A: How many referenda have we had since the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act was passed?

    A2: Four, each costing about nine million dollars.

    4. Remember 1996? What if the Cons scare social liberal voters away from the Nats?

    A: What if they don’t?

    A2: It has happened before. Why can’t it happen again, exactly?

    5. Given the Cons’ ludicrous anti-Treaty stance, could they work with the Maori Party?

    A: Which bit is the ludicrous bit?

    A2: That the Conservatives are anti-Treaty and base their position on a rather extreme character without any tertiary qualifications in history named Peter Robinson? That if the Maori Party have a higher voter share than the Cons, it won’t be the coalition partner of choice?

    6. Are NZF and the Cons actually after the same voter share? Might they cancel each other out?

    A: It appears that the Conservatives have the upper hand on this one at the moment.

    A2: Not according to any reliable polling I’ve seen, they haven’t.

    7. Shouldn’t someone do a thorough background check of Con candidate backgrounds?

    A: Sure – lets make this a pre-requisite for all candidates across all parties though.

    A2: No arguments there. Let’s have stronger standards of transparency.

    8. Can Colin Craig actually win a constituency?

    A: It would appear so.

    A2: According to a hypothetical designated electorate, according to someone who may well be a Conservative Party member himself, according to no reputable contemporary opinion polls? Sorry, I think we require more than that…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    1. Colin Craig has never held public office:

    A: Could you please reference as to where this a mandated pre-requisite to be elected to Parliament?

    A2: Given this lack of experience, why should we chance it?

    A3: So, it’s nor a pre-requisite.

    2. The Cons oppose asset sales, the core of National’s fiscal policy

    A: So how might this prevent a working relationship between National & the Conservatives?

    A2: At least ACT and United Future are safer bets from this perspective!

    A3: Goodness me, they are not even safe as being able to hold down Ministerial positions this time around – not sure what your definition of “safe” is, given this dual outcome.

    3. Where is all the money for this endless plethora of binding referenda going to come from?

    A: How many referenda have we had since the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act was passed?

    A2: Four, each costing about nine million dollars.

    A3: And how many were listened to by Parliament? I would argue that it is the “non-binding” bit that is the costly bit, given that the results of the referendum were repeatedly ignored.

    4. Remember 1996? What if the Cons scare social liberal voters away from the Nats?

    A: What if they don’t?

    A2: It has happened before. Why can’t it happen again, exactly?

    A3: I guess we won’t know until after the outcome.

    5. Given the Cons’ ludicrous anti-Treaty stance, could they work with the Maori Party?

    A: Which bit is the ludicrous bit?

    A2: That the Conservatives are anti-Treaty and base their position on a rather extreme character without any tertiary qualifications in history named Peter Robinson? That if the Maori Party have a higher voter share than the Cons, it won’t be the coalition partner of choice?

    A3: Anti-treaty, or anti a particular take on the Treaty?

    6. Are NZF and the Cons actually after the same voter share? Might they cancel each other out?

    A: It appears that the Conservatives have the upper hand on this one at the moment.

    A2: Not according to any reliable polling I’ve seen, they haven’t.

    A3: Fair call – you have me on that one.

    7. Shouldn’t someone do a thorough background check of Con candidate backgrounds?

    A: Sure – lets make this a pre-requisite for all candidates across all parties though.

    A2: No arguments there. Let’s have stronger standards of transparency.

    A3: Agreed.

    8. Can Colin Craig actually win a constituency?

    A: It would appear so.

    A2: According to a hypothetical designated electorate, according to someone who may well be a Conservative Party member himself, according to no reputable contemporary opinion polls? Sorry, I think we require more than that…

    A3: Yes, it is all dependent on a number of yet-to-be-seen outcomes, but one has to admit – it’s looking pretty good for the Conservative Party, if all the ducks do line up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Well this is all a bit he-said-she-said but shows you why Steve has such hiiiigggghh hopes for the Conservative Party

    http://yournz.org/2013/04/24/conservative-warning-to-media/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Hi Itstricky:

    It’s interesting though, isn’t it, that since Colin Craig stood up for himself, and after the MSM had what appeared to be a bit of a collective “tanty” as a result, the MSM have seemingly been a lot more careful, and a lot less cavalier about how they report on him? Yes, I remember the exchange at the above link – the assumption at the time was that because I was supporting someone standing up for themselves against the MSM, then I must be on the supported persons payroll. I did also ask that the author quote me in full to illustrate context, however, this request was declined, for reasons that I assume suited the agenda of the author of the post at the time – such is the nature of social media (and yes, MSM as well).

    Politically speaking, my “hopes are high” that voting in elections will not continue to be a grand charade in what passes for a democracy, and that the nearly 1 million or so people that didn’t vote last election (that number is roughly equivalent to 9 additional minor parties) will be motivated to do so.

    Someone knocking on my door every three years, whacking up some signs, and chucking a leaflet or three in my letterbox doesn’t equate to “representation” in any meaningful way that I understand the term. I live in an Electorate whereby the sitting MP (Cunnliffe) doesn’t even live in the area, so his understanding, experience, and even empathy for the Electorate relies on some sort of long-distance relationship via remote association.

    In my line of work, relationship matters -without it, nothing else gets done.

    And if I was to describe my own observation of the nature of the relationship between those that govern, and those that are governed, I would nominate the term “distant and dysfunctional” as an apt description.

    My “hopes” are thus for something better than this current description.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Keep on recruiting Steveo, keep on recruiting…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    Hi Itstricky:

    As I commented on another post, the Conservative Party are reporting over 5000 members and counting – it seems that the recruitment dynamic has taken on a life of its own for the Conservative Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote