Hard News: Decision 2014: Where to watch and listen
37 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
They need to get out and understand what people in my electorate (Roskill) were actually trying to say when they voted for Goff but against Labour. There is a message there that Cunliffe and the party leadership is not hearing.
Jeanette Fitzsimons made a good point on Nat Radio earlier: When things are uncertain (even if you’re doing reasonably well) a lot of people instincts are small-c conservative. I'd argue Labour understood and played into that skilfully in both '02 & '05 and tapped into a pool of voters who weren't tribal Labour but were either ticking along OK or the alternatives scared the crap out of them.
Did Labour run a “change” campaign (like '84 or '99) when there was no real stomach for it? And I’d argue, a failure to clearly provide both the ask and the answer – the discontent and the alternative.
There’s plenty of arguments both pro and contra that thesis, but it’s worth thinking about.
-
Simon Lyall, in reply to
They need to get out and understand what people in my electorate (Roskill) were actually trying to say when they voted for Goff but against Labour. There is a message there that Cunliffe and the party leadership is not hearing.
I really wouldn't read too much into the local votes. In most electorates it makes no real difference as they are pretty safe. In most cases the Labour and National candidates will attract most of the minor party voters not Labour supporters voting for the Labour candidate and then another party.
I'm in Mt Roskill too and I knew that Goff was always going to win no matter who I voted for. I was even joking with people I'd vote for Minto.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I really wouldn’t read too much into the local votes.
True, but the pattern was replicate in several electorates. Ignore at your peril.
I’m in Mt Roskill too and I knew that Goff was always going to win no matter who I voted for. I was even joking with people I’d vote for Minto.
But that isn't what happened or what I'm confused about. They voted for Goff, the landslide always-going-to-win candidate even though their individual vote would make no difference to the candidate race.
But at the same time they gave their party vote to National. Something that really would have an effect on the outcome of the election.
I don't know why and I don't think the Labour party know why.
-
Rightly or wrongly they perceived The Greens as dangerous to NZs economy. Somehow Labour has to sort out an environmental policy that stands alone independent of The Greens so that those voters can feel they can vote for the environment by voting Labour without the negative perceptions around The Greens.
So it's not the media, but people believe the Greens are economically irresponsible so it's their fault? That doesn't work out.
And Labour attacking the Greens hasn't yet worked for them, so I don't think doubling down on it is a great plan of action. -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I don’t know why and I don’t think the Labour party know why.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I don’t get the joke. Maybe its because I attended protest marches around Eden park during the 1980s in which Minto played a huge part in organizing.
Yup, if I was in Roskill I'd have given him my vote, just for the novelty value of being able to say what a dude I think he is that way. To be able to simultaneously signal that I think Goff is a cock is just a bonus. I'm still paying for his influence on NZ even now. I've shelled out many thousands over the last few years to gain some skills, and I'm going to have to do it again for both of my kids.
-
mccx, in reply to
But like it or not the media reflected the actual voters.
To an extent the media did reflect the public's interest, but arguing that means ignoring the difference between the public's interest and the public interest and allowing the media to avoid any responsibility for pursuing the latter.
One media influence I find particularly worrisome is how opinion polling appears to drive voting preference as much as reflect it. The public may have treated this election campaign as a foregone conclusion or wanted to 'be on the winning side' – neither of which really sit with the consideration that is supposed to drive voting.
-
tussock, in reply to
The relationship with The Greens was toxic to Labour, too many people I spoke with were simply afraid to vote Labour. Rightly or wrongly they perceived The Greens as dangerous to NZs economy.
Uh, you're talking to National party voters? That's their attack ad. "NZ CAN'T AFFORD A LABOUR/GREENS GOVERNMENT". Lies and more lies, but they speak them with a clear voice.
Labour has a very simple counter to that every time: Party vote Labour is less seats for the Greens, and a better chance to pass policy without them.
-
tussock, in reply to
But at the same time they gave their party vote to National.
There's a lot of people in every seat vote for a Red candidate and the Blue party, or a Blue candidate and the Red party. Believe it or not, sometimes people who like one party also like a person from the other party.
Clear your confusion: it's not Goff voters voting National, it's National voters voting Goff. Because they like him. Just that simple. The problem is there's not enough Labour voters, not who it is puts Goff in each time.
-
tussock, in reply to
One media influence I find particularly worrisome is how opinion polling appears to drive voting preference as much as reflect it.
There's a huge bunch of bullshit talked around individual poll results, the media over-play the ups and downs, but the trends are real and have some meaning behind them. They sometimes get out of touch, drift into bias, but the trends stay real and they obviously corrected for bias well this time through. You just can't randomly ring up a thousand people over and over again and keep getting incorrect answers.
One thing they've been hearing for the last 18 months is more and more Labour voters (and a few Greens) becoming "undecided". National's steady rise in the polls from mid-2013 to mid-2014 reflected a real change in the electorate.
A big crowd of those people picked New Zealand First. A good few went back to Labour. A lot went to the Conservatives. Most of them probably stayed home. That's who those people are, socially conservative, authoritarian, centre-left voters. The ones who really do think those spies are obviously only attacking criminals and they have nothing to hide.
Secretly, the ones Labour lost with the section 59 repeal, because they're still hitting their kids for Jesus. Even though National voted for it, and those people aren't stupid and won't vote National either. It's probably a conversation Labour needs to have, in public, that they don't think those people are criminals, and respect the love they have for their kids, that the law was just to stop a few really bad people from hurting their kids very badly, which it has. -
I'm not convinced that polls drive the results. Some evidence to that effect would be good, although it's actually hard to see what kind of evidence would be effective.
-
mccx, in reply to
You just can’t randomly ring up a thousand people over and over again and keep getting incorrect answers.
That's not what I meant. I don't mean that during the act of being polled people's minds are changed (though push polling may exist) or that the results are incorrect, I mean that the existence of opinion poll results as a news item that is seen by the public as something pre-existing and fixed will influence people's opinions (and voting behaviour.)
And Ben, don't take my word for it – it's not my area of expertise, but it's a known thing in political science and sociology. It's variously called the "bandwagon effect" or the "performativity" of opinion polling. I could some provide academic citations/abstracts though I doubt that alone is of much use.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.