Posts Tagged ‘Labour Party’

1. Tail Wagging the Dog?

   Published on Wednesday, August 24th, 2011
   Two high profile political polls have been released recently that have shown a significant gap between the two leading parties in New Zealand looking to form a government post 26th November. For the party strategists there is a risk that such large gaps can lead to a sense of panic on one side and complacency on the other. I do wonder sometimes however whether public opinion is driving poll results or polling results are actually driving public opinion. Is this a case of the ‘tail wagging the dog?’

   Polling is generally undertaken by research companies directly phoning constituents at home at those inconvenient times of the day to gather their data. It is widely acknowledged however that home phoning does not capture a true cross section of society. Groups not to be represented in such sampling include the elderly (in rest homes and other institutions), the poor that do not have home phones and the younger mobile phone driven generation to name a few, but all of whom are clearly eligible to vote. Without trying to make sweeping generalisations, political polls tend to under represent the left and center-left parties for this reason.

   The other factor is that widespread communication of polling results, particularly via the media, send strong messages that undoubtedly influence some voting patterns – particularly around strategic voting where constituents are hesitant about giving too much political power to one party. The end result is probably that those parties that are under-represented in the initial polling could be adversely affected by the polling methodology rather than actual public sentiment. It could be somewhat of a double whammy.

   As Annette King recently said “bugger the polls”! She might be right.

2. New chums in a unique cause

   Published on Friday, November 19th, 2010
   

   Another deserving beach

   I’ve not been there, but New Chums Beach on the eastern side of the Coromandel has now become a political cause celebre.  I suspect that this is not so much for its beauty but its value as political leverage on the part of the opposition parties, Labour and Greens.

   Beautiful I’m sure, but New Chums is far from as unique as its protagonists would have us believe. If you don’t believe me, just get out and look around.

   That the Greens and Labour have formed some sort of coalition to save the beach is a communication triumphant for the initial advocate for banning any human habitation in sight of the beach, one Linda Cholmondeley-Smith. This New Chums champion is a descendant of a former owner who obviously received their 30 pieces of silver, but didn’t have the wit to place a caveat on building, which would of course reduce the value of the land to them.

   Cholmondeley-Smith’s strategy was invite media up to the beach and wax eloquent and tearful about its uniqueness. Of course, everyone likes a day at the beach on full pay, so they were quickly on board.

   The Greens will subscribe to anything that dips into the public purse without seeming self interest, while at the same time poking a stick in the eye of the obviously wealthy and vehicle-loving owners, so they could definitely be counted in on this campaign.

   Labour was more cautious and wanted to see which way the wind was blowing.  Understandable given they’d declined to buy the beach when in government – something we need a better explanation of. Out of government it’s a whole new ball game, and the objective now is to points-score at any cost to the taxpayer.

   The question I can’t resolve is, why New Chums?  To claim uniqueness is simply rhetoric.

   What Cholmondeley-Smith and her new found political friends are “selling” is the concept of unique – something few of us will ever visit and fewer of us could afford.  While the deficit grows by the day, I can think of a dozen other unique beaches our money could also be spent on. These I expect would be more affordable and probably easier for most of us to access.

3. Straddling the high wire … and surviving

   Published on Friday, July 2nd, 2010
   Less than two years ago as we led into the November 2008 election, the preservation of our fight against the evils of climate change, in the form of the emissions trading scheme, was sacrosanct.

   Only ACT railed against it, National promised to be pragmatic while Labour told us the ‘end is nigh’ if we dared to scupper it.

   We’re now into day two of a watered down ETS, and based on the furore in the media the end is certainly nigh – in terms of the impact it is predicted to have on our disposal income.

   Media would have us believe the only people in NZ that now support an ETS is a National Party that has lost touch with the electorate.

   Across the Tasman, one of the reasons put forward for the dramatic rolling of Kevin Rudd as Australian PM is that he did not follow through on his commitment to introduce an ETS!

   It would appear that while we want to see ours gone, Australians are keen to have one imposed on them.

   Perhaps our Government is paying more attention to the words of the Acting British High Commissioner, who in an address in Wellington last month was pretty blunt when he talked about Europe’s position on climate change.

   Buried in the text was the warning ‘…don’t underestimate how important climate change and low carbon issues are to us. It is at the heart of what we believe and central to our governments’ policies. It is driving our business and is a massive issue for many of our citizens. We are prepared to judge ourselves and others by how we respond to the challenge’.

   For a diplomat that is pretty strong language. Perhaps he has been even blunter in his private discussions with our trade emissaries about the impact not doing our bit could have on our future food trade with Europe?

   Being successful in politics has always included the ability to balance yourself strategically on the high wire. This Government is mastering the art fast.