It seems it was more National voters who stayed home in 2011

May 5th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

A reader sends in his analysis:

I have recently performed some statistical analyses of results from the 2008 and 2011 elections, in order to test a theory about voter behaviour in 2011.

 You are probably aware of what this analysis shows already. I hope so.  But given

a) the importance of the results and

b) the widespread assumption of contrary conclusions among the commentariat (eg that the low turnout hurt Labour);

I thought I should pass this on to you, just in case.

When the 2011 election proved unexpectedly close on a reduced turnout, I theorised that, misled by the polls, many National-sympathetic voters had simply stayed home or indulged themselves with a vote for NZ First or the Conservative Party in order to make a political point.

It recently occurred to me that my theories were testable from the 2008 and 2011 election statistics by testing for statistical correlations. The results of this were: 

Variables Correlation co-efficient*
National Party vote in 2008 vs Conservative Party vote 2011 (general electorates) 0.601
Change in National Party vote between 2008 and 2011 vs change in NZ First Party vote 2008-2011 (general electorates) -0.379
Change in Labour Party vote between 2008 and 2011 vs change in NZ First Party vote 2008-2011 (general electorates) -0.004
National Party vote in 2008 vs change in overall turnout 2008-2011 (general electorates) 0.271
National Party vote in 2008 vs change in overall turnout 2008-2011, (general electorates, excluding Christchurch) 0.379
Labour Party vote in 2008 vs change in overall turnout 2008-2011, (general electorates, excluding Christchurch) -0.278

 * A coefficient of 0 means the variables are unrelated. A coefficient of ±1 means there is a perfect relationship.

 What this means

1)      Conservative Party votes in 2011 came overwhelmingly from National (no surprise).

2)      There is an inverse relationship between the increases in NZ First vote in 2011 and the relative performance of National. In other words, the increased NZ First vote was mainly at National’s expense. There was almost zero correlation between the NZ First and Labour vote.

3)      The higher the National vote in 2008, the bigger the decline in turnout in 2011. In other words, it was National voters (more than Labour voters) who stayed home.

I sought corroboration of this finding by listing those general electorates where the turnout decline between the two elections was greater than 6% (on average, the turnout decline was 5.35%).

The electorates were: Botany, Chiristchurch Central, Chch East, Clutha Southland, Dunedin North, ECB, Hamilton East, Helensville, Hunua, Invercargill, Manurewa, North Shore, Northcote, Pakuranga, Whangarei and Wigram.

Of these 16 electorates, 11 had a 2008 National Party party vote greater than the national average for general electorates of 47.3%. With the Christchurch electorates excluded (there being special reasons for turnout decline there) this becomes 11 out of 13 electorates.

Conclusion

Contrary to “received wisdom” it was National that suffered from the reduced turnout in 2011. Additionally, the NZ First vote was boosted primarily by defections from National. Uncontroversially, it is confirmed that Conservative votes came overwhelmingly at National’s expense.

My theory that the above phenomena were a result of complacency in the face of the widespread expectation of National waltzing home with a win remains only a theory. But it is one that fits the facts quite well.

However, it seems to me that if true, the greatest danger for National in 2014 is, again, complacency and a failure of potential supporters to vote for the party (whether by staying home or by risking a vote for other parties that may not meet the threshold criteria or may not support National after the election).

This is a fascinating analysis, backed by hard data, not guesswork.

Labour’s entire strategy seems to be to have abandoned moderate centrist voters on the assumption the non voters last time were primarily Labour voters who just need a reason to turn out.

I agree with the conclusion that National supporters can not be complacent. If National supporters do not turn out in 2014, then Mr Dotcom may be picking the Government.

Tags: ,

87 Responses to “It seems it was more National voters who stayed home in 2011”

  1. Colville (2,058 comments) says:

    Every National voter should be suitably terrified enough that they beat on all the doors in their neighbourhood and offer to drive any sane voter to the booths on the big day.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    The only reason that National voters would abandon them is for socially conservative reasons that are fundamental to the fabric of society, ie smacking in the last election and probably the redefinition of marriage in this next one. That’s why the Conservative Party will have traction – take away those two major issues, and voters will come back to National because Labour is damn scary.

    Of course I have no hard data, just lots of conversations in various circles with disaffected National voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. alloytoo (430 comments) says:

    It appears to me that certain parts of National have cottoned onto this, Bill English’s recent comments come to mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    National have a very hard task ahead. Luckily they will have Winston to get them over the line.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. BeaB (2,056 comments) says:

    Really? Smacking and gay weddings? Sideshows.

    If I listened to a lot of fellow Nats I’d go mad – national service, school cert, all the old sacred cows come up again and agaiin. As many nut jobs on the right as on the left, Well. perhaps not quite as many.

    In the end, single-issue voting is just asinine, as is voting for someone because of his smile like Winston, or Dot Con because it’s a poke at the Establishment.

    National needs to keep showing us the whole picture, warts and all, and Cunliffe needs to keep on showing off his chest hairs; then, if we all turn out, NZ should be in safe hands for at least another three years.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    That’s wishful thinking rather than a strategy there, BeaB.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. BeaB (2,056 comments) says:

    But we cannot afford any more of Judith Collins’s astonishing mishandling of her responsibilities. I have a lot of time for her but the past few days have been bizarre. Grant Roberston will be accusing her of being menopausal.
    She needs to pull her head in, concentrate on Justice and keep right out of the limelight. She should be put on compassionate leave for a week or two so other, saner voices can answer for her in Parliament.
    She will do more to undermine this government than anyone else. She looks smirking and up herself on TV and cannot resist the smart alec remark. John Key must cringe every time she opens her mouth. She looks like everything he is working so hard to change in National’s image.
    Judith – go away, get your head straight and come back to work, not to grandstand.
    She has definitely shown herself to be unsuited to leadership. Now she has to show she deserves our faith in her.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ed Snack (1,733 comments) says:

    BeaB, those are reasons people go from National to Conservative, which at 2-3% is more than enough to prevent an easy victory. I’d add one thing to that list of dotty older voters’ concerns, Winston.

    I think the “natural” home of the Conservative and NZ First Voters is probably more National than Labour, so it would be no surprise to me that the surge in votes for the Winnie & Colin show came largely at National’s expense. And it will again for those who focus on social issues; the truly “progressive” will always vote left regardless of how National positions itself, so that audience is really only National’s to lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    To be safe, National needs a strategy that maximises the chances of Colin Craig and Winston being in Parliament, with a trickle of supporters. What moves should John Key make, now, to effect such a strategy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    What happened to the rock star economy ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jonno1 (79 comments) says:

    BeaB @3,27, I’m with Lucia on this one. Socially conservative policies do matter. In addition, National has moved so far from its founding principals it isn’t funny. They may see this as pragmatism, and they may be right, but it still alienates a whole tranche of traditional supporters. Apart from moral issues they’ve also failed on reforming the RMA and repudiating the global warming scam, to name just two examples. I agree that single-issue voting is a mistake, but we’re not talking a single issue here, there are many.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jonno1 (79 comments) says:

    Whoops! That’s “principles”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Unity (269 comments) says:

    I would say many National voters are feeling very disaffected with the Party because of the escalating racial issues leading to our country not being a democracy any more especially as we lurch towards apartheid. Preferential treatment based on race is apartheid. This is what we now have and it’s increasing into every aspect of our lives. Our country is also literally being given away on a reinvented, rewritten history, together with vast sums of money. The people just feel the politicians don’t listen any more and do what is best for their own re-election chances.

    Binding referenda are the only way to go if we are ever to take back our democracy, but none of the politicians want to lose their power. They are not there to represent us – they are there to feather their own nests by and large. Where else would many of them earn such a large wage together with all the perks that go with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    If you think we are lurching towards apartheid then you are probably no0t a natural National voter. Try the one law for all crowd and join your fellow hundreds.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tamati (69 comments) says:

    Would the author of the analysis be happy to share his/her results?

    I’m guessing this analysis was done in R?

    I’d be keen to look a little closer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MT_Tinman (2,984 comments) says:

    Beab you normally talk sense but anyone who’s vote is influenced by the recent slime-manufactured bullshit (except in Collins’ electorate itself should not be allowed to vote.

    What this post does confirm is the very poor performance of Joyce in the last campaign.

    It is the campaign’s job to get the punters out to vote.

    National and the good guys will lose the. next electon unless they admit that and do it better this time.

    That means no silly bloody “cup-of-teas” etc.just honest and straight forward discussion on why a National led government is what NZ needs.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kiwi in america (2,431 comments) says:

    This is an excellent analysis and accords with my own gut feeling – complacency amongst National or National leaning voters thanks to the ‘govern alone’ polling reporting pre-election, made the result narrower than expected. Without a more thorough and robust GOTV effort in September, National risks another squeaker for the same reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nocommentkiwi (35 comments) says:

    Labour’s assumption that there is support to be found amongst ‘non-voters’ is theoretically sound and supported by comparative evidence. The quote below elucidates the idea behind Labour’s assumption.

    “Most studies of participation have found that socio-economic status (SES) is strongly correlated to participation. Education, income, age and sometimes gender are highly significant predictors of whether somebody voted (Franklin, 2002 and Norris, 2002, 83ff). If it is assumed that the political system listens more closely to the voices of those who participate, unequal turnout spells unequal influence of the less-well-do citizens (Lijphart, 1997, 1; Verba et al., 1995, 11). Because low SES voters traditionally voted for left wing socialist and social democratic parties, low turnout should lead to a bias against left wing parties and left wing policies in consequence.”
    –Lutz, G. & Marsh, M. (2007). Introduction: Consequences of low turnout. Electoral Studies.26 (3). 540-547.

    However, influence of class or socio-economic status on voter preference and turnout may be changing and it is worth noting the second-lowest turnout in an MMP election was won by the Labour party in 2002. Whether this is a result of Nats not getting out to vote in a obvious loss, as arguably is the case for Labour voters in 2011, or something else is unclear. It would therefore be very interesting to see some expansion on the reader’s analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    It is hard to see a GOTV effort alone making enough difference – National badly needs viable coalition partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Shazzadude (505 comments) says:

    His point here, which he uses to justify his conclusion 3) “The higher the National vote in 2008, the bigger the decline in turnout in 2011. In other words, it was National voters (more than Labour voters) who stayed home.” is based largely on presumption. His argument is that because the voter turnout declined in strong National electorates, it must mean it was National who were the main sufferers. In fact, it’s entirely possible that it was Labour-leaning voters in strong National electorates who decided not to turn out.

    As it happened, National either increased the margin or reduced the margin of victory for Labour in 11 out of the 13 seats mentioned above.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kiwi in america (2,431 comments) says:

    mikenmild
    2011 pre-election polling had National at over 50%. With the wasted vote, anything above about 48.5% is govern alone territory. If National maintains polling above this level (they are not far off that right now) and they ensure that the actual vote matches the polling (via their GOTV efforts) then they can govern alone. If they stay below 48% then yes for sure they need coalition partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ed Snack (1,733 comments) says:

    Mikenmild, your constant trolling re NZF and National is noted….give it a rest. Anyone who does a deal with Winston has to hold their nose in order to do it. It should be no less objectionable for Labour to cut a deal with Winnie than for National, but Labour’s whole strategy to win this election somehow consists of squaring the circle by compiling an “anti-the government” coalition consisting of ANYONE who will listen.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. BeaB (2,056 comments) says:

    Tinman
    I agree it’s bs but her handling has been appalling. These things have to be tackled straight on, truthfully and fully with no smart arse stuff.
    I don’t know what got into her but if she’s making my loyal old toes curl god knows what she’s doing to her colleagues. She is playing into Robertson’s spiteful, nasty hands.
    She has to get off the front page, tone it all down and STFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Shazzadude (505 comments) says:

    You’d have to be daydreaming to think National will get to govern alone after the election this year. I think if National were allowed to lock in 45% right now they’d happily take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    Ed
    Nice to know I’m getting some traction. It still remains the likeliest scenario, IMHO. “Arise, Sir Winston”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Fisiani (943 comments) says:

    National scored a record high of 47% and scraped in by 1 vote with the support of Peter Dunne and John Banks yet Labour only scraped 27% . That is the sad reality of MMP. It will be really close and every vote counts and every vote needs to be counted. Party Vote National.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (783 comments) says:

    All this analysis is waste of time. Labour is sleep walking to victory. Under the crap MMP system we have here, Communist Labour-Socialist Green-Winston First-Horny Hone-Kim DotCon government is a certainty. Wait for the next set of polls. Roy Morgan is expected any time now….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    The Left have a knack of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory via their disunity & infighting. Of more import is the determination of the MSM to change the Government.

    That & the pathetic Godwhacked conservative nutcases who would risk having their country governed by the Greens to get utu over National’s support for gay marriage & the loss of their rights to bash their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    nasska
    Do you really think gay marriage and the anti-smacking law will remain if John Key is beholden to Colin Craig?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    I can’t see Colin Craig crossing the 5% or electorate lines Mike. Rather it will be a total waste of about 2% of the party vote that would otherwise be National’s.

    Should he actually make it to Parliament who knows what would be the price of his support….he’s so flaky that three years in opposition would probably be an attractive alternative for Key & Co.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    Yeah, I could imagine him supporting on confidence and supply and whistling in the wind for anything substantial.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bringbackdemocracy (391 comments) says:

    Given that there is little difference between red Labour and blue Labour, socially Conservative voters are looking for a home.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    My preference would be for JK to absolutely rule out having anything to do with the CCCP. That would bring most of those who know better than us how to live our lives back to National as few would want to totally waste their vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    bringbackdemocracy

    Socially conservative voters are on a par with the dodo. They are few in number but unable or unwilling to accept that the entire political spectrum has moved left. National now have policies not far removed from those of Labour thirty years ago. For better or worse times have changed but someone forgot to tell the moralists & Godfreaks.

    National are simply better managers of the economy & that is what we elect governments to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Contrary to “received wisdom” it was National that suffered from the reduced turnout in 2011.

    While Labour and the Green benefit from a lack of wisdom :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. MT_Tinman (2,984 comments) says:

    Nasska 30 years ago was the start of the most left wing govt. NZ have ever suffered. National could not be left of that.

    I agree however that consevative = dinosaur and has no attraction to most voters – outside the dementia ward anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Socially conservative voters are on a par with the dodo. They are few in number but unable or unwilling to accept that the entire political spectrum has moved left.

    In your dreams you sister loving tractor driving gorse farming Jesus hating vile prog loser :)

    Riddle me this:

    I am just the vanguard of a political movement that is going to wipe Progressives off the face of the earth. They’ll disappear like the Dodo birds did.

    I am spearheading a force that will grow from hundreds to thousands to millions and you will be gone.

    Redbaiter KB 2013

    Them were the days nasska LOL :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. MT_Tinman (2,984 comments) says:

    Beab the slime are attempting to do to Collins what they did to our Jen.

    Collins is, I hope, tougher.

    I would hope National voters are brighter nowdays as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    ….”Them were the days nasska”….

    The screwy part is that they actually believe that the 50′s were the greatest age to live in & that is why they’re trying to turn back the clock.

    Apart from the fact that Baity & his conservative mates are stark raving mad they have another problem…..I was born in 1949 & I can remember the religion saturated, alcohol soaked, moralistic, authoritarian reality.

    And I’m more than happy to bring them up to speed with what living in the dark ages entails.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    Nasska,

    That & the pathetic Godwhacked conservative nutcases who would risk having their country governed by the Greens to get utu over National’s support for gay marriage & the loss of their rights to bash their children.

    It’s not UTU – it’s wanting to have things set right. Until they take natural supporters, such as myself, seriously, I won’t vote for them unless I absolutely have to. I will always vote, but for parties that will challenge them on these these core issues.

    Smacking is important, because it does no harm, and allows the State to interfere in the rearing of children on ideological grounds. It’s a foot in the door that needs to be kicked out.

    Marriage is important, because without a proper framework for the raising of children, more and more children will have to be raised by the State and our society will eventually disintegrate, because civilisations aren’t dictated by the State; they are passed down by families. Real ones, with a mother and a father who vow to stay together.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, that is just what slimy prog would say though ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    The screwy part is that they actually believe that the 50′s were the greatest age to live in & that is why they’re trying to turn back the clock.

    Where did you get that impression? I personally wasn’t even born then, so I have no idea what it was like. I have no desire to go back in time – I wouldn’t give up all my technology to go back to some apparent idyllic past, of which there really was none, as far as I can tell. Every generation is a screwup, just in different ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    Totally disagree about the importance of marriage Lucia. It’s the quality of parents that’s all important & no child gets to pick his/her mother or father. No piece of paper or God approved wafflings in front of a priest or minister makes an iota of difference.

    For what it’s worth I’m less certain about the ‘smacking’ legislation & I would back a law change allowing defined corporal punishment. Too many parents half killed their children & sheltered under S59 for total repeal of current law to be even contemplated.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Smacking is important, because it does no harm,

    Lucy, We should catch up for a drink sometime. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Too many parents half killed their children & sheltered under S59

    nasska, the sorts of parents who beat kids to a pulp still do so, unaffected by the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. adze (1,855 comments) says:

    What were the p-values I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    There are more than a few who don’t comply with any laws Kea, so it’s highly unlikely that their regard for legislation covering bringing up kids is any different.

    The ones that are having their sadistic impulses curtailed are the “spare the rod, spoil the child” gang of misfits. Some of the punishment the Godfreaks used to hand out to their kids was nothing short of torture.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, agreed. Though a smack around the bum for little kids is probably not too bad. Either way I do not approve of the government sticking its nose in and its clearly not working anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. OneTrack (2,564 comments) says:

    mike – “National have a very hard task ahead. Luckily they will have Winston to get them over the line.”

    Vote Winston, get Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Unity (269 comments) says:

    Nasska, I’m not sure where you get the idea from that Colin Craig is so flaky. Apart from the media trying to make him sound flaky, and failing miserably, he comes across as very positive. I still haven’t worked out who is getting my Party vote yet but I do know that BINDING referenda are a big draw for me so that the people can take back their democracy which we certainly don’t have at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    ….”Though a smack around the bum for little kids is probably not too bad.”…..

    Ours got their arses smacked until they were about 8 or 9 although not very hard & not very often. The corrective effect came from them being told that if they acted like little children they would be punished the same way.

    It worked okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Plenty of right leaning Nat. voters not supporting the Nats. Failing to vote because the choice was left or lefter.
    The problem is that the Nats. have deef ears.

    They fail to meet their natural constituents needs and thus lose their vote. Wasted.

    appeasing everyone and being nice is fine but those on the right want to see some fairness and principles bought back into policy. They also want to see excess welfare for the “rich” curtailed. But the Nats. only ever beat up the beneficiaries rather than solving the problem, they treat the symptoms.

    Not surprizing considering they have no clear sense of purpose anymore other than we want to rule. Good old blue rinse stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Unity (269 comments) says:

    Well said, Lucia Maria. I agree entirely. Families have been gradually disintegrating, more than usual, because of the meddling by the State who have also taken away all the tools parents had for bringing up decent worthwhile citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    If you really felt you needed to assault your child to make him or her a decent worthwhile citizen then I suggest there are other things you could have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. nasska (10,609 comments) says:

    Unity

    Government by referenda is populist & prone to simplistic knee jerk responses to complex problems. It may have repealed the “smacking” legislation but you’d hate to see the society thus created…..certainly there would be very many ideas which would get support in a referendum that you’d really get bitter & twisted over.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    Ok, admission time.

    When my oldest was young, I was an anti-smacker, totally convinced that it was possible to raise children without smacking. I’d been involved in a number of online debates about it, was part of an attachment parenting group (real weirdos, so I hardly ever met up with them), and had intervened in smacking incidents at playgroup.

    I was eventually converted to smacking as the best, least abusive way of parenting young children, when they need to be punished for something severe.

    What anti-smackers don’t tell you is that because they don’t smack, sometimes they lose it and chase their child around the house in a rage and then smack them. They assume that all parents who smack only do so when incredibly angry, because that’s when they do it. I have had a couple of incidents like that myself and then felt really guilty.

    As the child gets older and reasoning with them stops working, you have to move onto “timeout”. When the child refuses to go to timeout, you have to drag them into it. If they resist, then all hell breaks loose. It was after one such incident with my then 4 year old son, where not only did I have to drag him, kicking and screaming to his room, but I had to be really careful as to how I closed the door so he wouldn’t fling himself at it while I was closing it, that I realised that smacking would be far less harmful, and would be over faster, and if done when not out of control would be much safer as well.

    It was my aha moment, so to speak.

    My prediction is that if smacking continues to be illegal, we will see more instances of child abuse than before. And lo and behold, that is happening, and will get worse as less and less parents smack.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Unity (269 comments) says:

    Yes, Viking2, you are so right. I have been a National supporter all of my life until 2008 when they got into power and Shonkey immediately started talking to the Maori Party when he didn’t need them. He certainly needed them in 2011 but not in 2008. It’s been downhill rapidly ever since and I’ve got to the stage that every time I hear stomping and Ka Mate Ka Mate at everything that opens and shuts, or someone greeting me with Kia Ora, I absolutely cringe. This from someone who loved Maori culture from birth especially their singing but I’m all haka’d out now and I also find expecting overseas dignataries to rub noses totally sickening. The Norwegian MP who complained and refused to do it, hit the nail on the head and I bet many secretly feel the same way. It’s just so rude to expect someone to get so close to someone’s personal space when they don’t even know them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. itstricky (1,529 comments) says:

    KB reader sends in analysis showing National favoured. Shock horror, who would have ever guessed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Unity (269 comments) says:

    You are absolutely correct, Lucia Maria. Smacking is not assault especially if done immediately the bad behaviour happens and quickly. Thankfully it wasn’t banned when I brought my four up and I rarely had to do it because they knew they didn’t like it, so strong words worked – usually. The ban hasn’t stopped those who monster their children from still doing so. What it has done is taken away the tools parents had and you see badly behaved kids when they are out and know why they are like that. A quick short sharp smack would stop it in its tracks immediately. I feel very sorry for parents today and feel I would still give mine a quick smack if it was needed regardless of the law. I would then explain to the children the consequences of them reporting me, if they commented in that way, and how they would be taken away etc etc. I’m sure they would soon work out that it was better to behave.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Crusader (274 comments) says:

    mikenmild (9,050 comments) says:
    May 5th, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    If you think we are lurching towards apartheid then you are probably no0t a natural National voter. Try the one law for all crowd and join your fellow hundreds.

    One law for all. What an outrageous idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. itstricky (1,529 comments) says:

    One law for all. What an outrageous idea.

    Assimilation for all who don’t look like me. What an outrageous idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (22,731 comments) says:

    What anti-smackers don’t tell you is that because they don’t smack, sometimes they lose it and chase their child around the house in a rage and then smack them.

    Bollocks. I’ve never done anything like that.

    They assume that all parents who smack only do so when incredibly angry, because that’s when they do it.

    Bollocks. Smacking is done in a wide variety of situations.

    Making extreme generalisations like this is as bad as saying, say, that what anti-atheists don’t tell you is that because they don’t have any realistic thoughts, sometimes they lose it and chase satan around the house in a rage smacking anyone in sight.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (22,731 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria, my aha moment as a parent was one day when my oldest daughter (four year old) had done two significantly naughty things and her mother summonsed me home to deal with it. I spanked her. Half heartedly. And I realised how bloody silly it was to try and hurt her. So I never considered it again. And in general I doubt you find many better behaved kids overall, people often commented on their good behaviour over the years.

    The bonus is they have grown up not learning to resolve things by hitting people at all and least of all people they love to try and resolve issues.

    I know many kids who are smacked are generally well behaved as well. But the risks are greater of ending up with a person who has learned to try and resolve things using violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Ok, admission time.

    Good on ya Lucy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Being around anti-smackers showed me how kids turned out when they are not smacked. Some are fine, others are complete little shits. The worst being a friend of my youngest son who used to punch my son, when he wouldn’t do what he wanted him to. Would attack his mother when he was pissed off with her. Only thing that slowed him down was constantly breaking his arms (had brittle bones).

    It depends on the child, in my opinion.

    Edited to add: Therefore, parents should just leave other parents to do as they see fit, as long as no harm is done, that is. Trying to fit one way of parenting to every child is not going to work.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Redbaiter (7,522 comments) says:

    “If National supporters do not turn out in 2014, then Mr Dotcom may be picking the Government.”

    Should have thought about that when you were all sucking up to the communist Lousia Walls.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    How, exactly, is she a communist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Chuck Bird (4,661 comments) says:

    The buck stops with John Key. He has shown he is not able to control his ministers. He should give Don Brash a go.

    He will do what he knows is right – bugger the pollsters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Lucia Maria (2,202 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    Just read your 7:23pm comment as I didn’t notice it before.

    No, you are a different type of anti-smacker, having done it once and thought that you didn’t like doing it. Also, not being the primary parent responsible for day to day discipline, you could get away with not dirtying your hands in that way. Now, you don’t have small children, so you are even further removed. So yeah, very different type. And yes, I know you are a grandparent – that doesn’t count.

    I was speaking about the virulent anti-smacking stay at home mothers in the groups I was part of – not a father from a different time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Proverbs 13:24

    24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
    but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    Proverbs 23:13

    Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. — Proverbs 30:17

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. freemark (428 comments) says:

    I suspect that one of the reasons that my daughters are such incredibly outgoing, brave, polite and well behaved girls is that they appreciated the ultimate sanction of a short, sharp smack to the bottom when they deliberately needed to know the boundaries. I could probably count on one hand the times it was necessary, and it hasn’t been for many years, but I have no doubt that it was equally as good parenting as time outs, sanctions and the reasoned discussions we now have, or directions they are given. But I accept that some parents/breeders are not able to use this method of correction wisely or safely. Again the feral & feckless ruin a decent society, aided & rewarded by the corrupt & sick Left.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    incredibly outgoing, brave, polite and well behaved is that they appreciated the ultimate sanction of a short, sharp smack to the bottom

    Kea is pretty sure it will work on Lucy too :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. seanmaitland (454 comments) says:

    nasska “the loss of their rights to bash their children.”

    I assume you don’t have children of your own. The people getting upset about the anti-smacking law are not the people who bash their children.

    Thats scraping the barrel if thats all you’ve got to argue a point on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. itstricky (1,529 comments) says:

    I could probably count on one hand the times it was necessary, and it hasn’t been for many years

    Clearly it was a key part of your parenting strategy, then. God knows how you’ll do with out now the sicko lefties have taken it off you; the world will turn to chaos.

    Again the feral & feckless ruin a decent society, aided & rewarded by the corrupt & sick Left.

    You just ruined an otherwise quite thoughtful post with a nutbar Conservo-whacko ending.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. itstricky (1,529 comments) says:

    When the child refuses to go to timeout, you have to drag them into it.

    The physical battle. And thus the epiphany of where it all started going down hill to smacking appears. You could just use your words – like a civilised, intelligent and compassionate human being. (1) I take away your toys. (2) I take away your TV time (3) I take away your bike. Bet you don’t ever get to (3). But I suppose hitting is just easier if inclined to the physical battle. Shame, really.

    Being around anti-smackers showed me how kids turned out when they are not smacked. Some are fine, others are complete little shits.

    And every kid who was smacked is an angel? But only “some” who weren’t smacked are shits? Such a scientific survey. One must admit that’s a little less proof than the rather statistical analysis that frames this post.

    Speaking of which, I should know better than to carry on peddling this strange silly smacking side topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Left Right and Centre (2,819 comments) says:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/it_seems_it_was_more_national_voters_who_stayed_home_in_2011.html#comment-1316590

    Sean – if you don’t read the whole lot – you can’t play the game mate.

    Lucia – who gives a fuck what you think – because you don’t think. You are a mindless sheep. You approve of whatever you are told to do. ‘I think marriage is really really cool and that’s the only way life should be’. Of course you do. That’s what you were told to think. You are told what to think and you follow it blindly without question. Like a school uniform. You all wear the same uniform and gush about how stylish it is. And then I’m suspicious that all the talk is just promotion to spread the word. To convert. If someone’s a sheep – I don’t need them to tell me about fleece. They’ve been fleeced – I don’t want to be. I’ll keep my freedom of thought thanks.

    Lucia – you’re like a mild watered down version of the idiots in America that campaign against homos and murder abortion doctors etc. I might have to start refering to you as ‘Luce unit’ from now on.

    What do you think of homos Luce ? Are they just confused ? Bucking for hell are they ?

    * * * *

    Smacking is assault or not as defined by the current legislation. It’s not up for debate. Sort of like red lights. They mean stop – there’s no intellectual discussion required. Debate how you would legislate the behaviour.

    Smacking or not smacking – is one factor in how people turn out. And looking around – not one that plays a big part either way. You don’t make sure the kids get a few smacks so they ‘grow up to be good people’ – how fucking stupid can you get ? Oh – they’re behaving too much without even being smacked. I must pray for an answer to this problem.

    Um – smacking isn’t totally illegal. Beating the snot out of anyone is illegal. Read the legislation instead of typing scroll.

    * * * *

    Good old Redbaiter eh ? Too good for the place – swears he’s never going to look again. How about some kind of concession speech ?

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Left Right and Centre (2,819 comments) says:

    On topic: I love it. I want to see Colmar Brunton polls of voter non-turnout – hahahaha. Are you planning on not bothering ? Brilliant – who is it that you don’t give a shite about voting for ?

    When I think of people who just don’t care – I think about braindead young low wage morons etc they’re not bloody National voters are they ?

    Answer = incentives. Vote and enter the draw to drop your choice of elected politician into a dunk tank. Potential turnout 90%+.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Left Right and Centre (2,819 comments) says:

    itstricky – you’re dealing with the brainwashed. As bad as dealing with a toddler. Neither will get it. At least the toddler has a valid excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Scott1 (444 comments) says:

    Labour will be correct that more left voters didn’t turn out than right voters, this is the trend almost everywhere in the world.
    BUT most of those voters are effectively non voters because it would take an implausible effort to get them to turn out. Of the voters it is quite possible that national had a downturn last election.

    The important question is just what the rate of return on investment is for focusing on that group vs the voting centrist group who might change their vote. In general I think focusing on the latter group is a much better strategy even though a part of focusing on that group is having a clear message and being heard (as opposed to just being centrist).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Ed Snack (1,733 comments) says:

    LR&C, it must be time for your meds boyo. And you have the gall to talk about being brainwashed and doing what your told; you’re so brave and daring and so “different” just parroting the same meaningless words as all the “progressives” do. Pity you don’t seem to actually comprehend what you are talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Paulus (2,490 comments) says:

    Winston will get one of the highest % votes he has ever had, and therefore an increased number of seats.

    As such he has the media telling his lies on his behalf, and they have only just started.

    He will put Key’s balls on the line with a vengeance – he hates Key, but loves himself..

    Winston is full of “I have evidence” again with no substance only bullshit.

    He is afraid of Collins and will do all he can along with Homo Robertson to get rid of her in every opportunity up to the election.

    Remember Collins produced in writing, in the public domain, the evidence of Peters’ perceived corruption, in Parliament, with his Partner when she was MD of a Pharmaceutical Company which Pharmac would not support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Unity (269 comments) says:

    Good post, Freemark. I totally agree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Left Right and Centre (2,819 comments) says:

    Whoops – no that sentence doesn’t meet KB standards when trying to make a point about religious thinking and views. Fair enough !!

    20 demerits ? Far out – scan for offending material – oooooooh – there it is. Doh !! Sorry Lucia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Left Right and Centre (2,819 comments) says:

    Ed Snack – non-religious = progressive ? Sure – ok. Cool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,065 comments) says:

    Thanks for tht. I’d also be fascinated to see what happens to voter turnout by party if you only analyse electorates with names that start with a vowel.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.