Another round of polls is upon us, and the news is all good for National and dire for Labour and the Greens.
With the last Roy Morgan Poll also showing National up, it's fair to assume that public opinion has shifted once more in favour of National.
Why is this? Everyone will have their own theory, but I'm not particularly surprised that Labour are down. They haven't really done much in recent weeks to justify a rise in the polls, and their leader's performances to date have been tentative and unconvincing.
David Shearer may well grow into the leader's role, and I have previously written that he needs to be given at least a year to perform, so I'm not about to call for his replacement. On the other hand, it would be nice to hear him speak about something, anything, with a bit of conviction. When David Shearer gives one of his big speeches about how New Zealand could be like Finland or Denmark, he may as well be talking about Narnia. It means nothing to most traditional Labour voters.
Above all Labour must focus on the issues that influence voting decisions, if they wish to win in 2014. Most people hate asset sales, but they hated them in 2011 when National announced the asset sales policy. It's clear that most voters in the 2011 election weren't motivated by the issue of asset sales, because if they had been National would not have been returned to office. Labour's decision to focus most of its energy on forcing a referendum on asset sales, rather than on winning back the people who didn't bother voting for Labour last time, seems risky.
Labour Party strategists will be hoping the reality of the asset sales plan eventually dawns on voters, and that opposition to the plan results in a shift in support towards the centre-left. But many of the people who traditionally vote Labour but didn't in 2008 or 2011 will have more important things on their minds. Things like affordable housing, the rising cost of living, and unemployment. Those are the issues Labour must target relentlessly.
I don't subscribe to the view that Labour is ultimately doomed, but the party has lost its way and appears to be unable to clearly explain to voters what it stands for. What it needs now above all else is strong leadership, and a renewed focus on the things that matter to those traditional Labour supporters who didn't bother to vote in 2008 or 2011.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
10 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a theory that Labour are down in the polls due to random variation within the margin of error. I call this theory "statistics".
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the out-of-touch rump parliamentary elite have plans to ensure it will take a 67% vote of the caucus to turf their man out of the leadership, and that in turn means that since the turkeys on Labour's front bench will never vote for an early Xmas, the party is doomed to drift on 32% in 2014 to 29% in 2017 to 25% in 2020 to 22% in 2023... None of which will bother Trev, who will ensure his top ten spot allows him to continue his cycling career, or Ruth Dyson, who will continue to do very little from number five or six on the list or Phil Goff, who will continue to basically support National anyway from seven or eight on the list.
ReplyDeleteI like how Garner's explanation of the uptick - after video intro of how there wasn't any particular reason - was a short version of John Key's. No wait, what's the phrase? I mean, "don't like".
ReplyDeleteThe problem's obvious.
ReplyDeleteShearer isn't good at politics. That's not an insult (in fact, the opposite - "politician" is usually a term of abuse). I'm sure he's a great guy.
But a great guy shouldn't try to be an opera singer or Usain Bolt if can't sing or run fast. And even if he gets the very best advice and support, he might sing or run a bit better, but he still won't be an opera singer or Usain Bolt. Shearer is trying to do something he's not suited for, and that's all too apparent, all the time.
Labour picked the wrong guy. Everyone knows this. The caucus knows this. Shearer probably (privately) knows it too.
But they don't want Cunliffe, so we just sit and wait for Grant Robertson to take over, eventually. Until then there's no point navel-gazing and fretting about policy and tactics. A new message won't solve anything ... not with the same messenger.
"Most people hate asset sales"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that's true - polls show a majority prefer the shares weren't sold, but a lot of that opposition could be very soft "prefer not" rather than hate.
There's still a lot of people that seem to prefer National despite the sales, and there's still not a big surge in support for asset referendum champions Greens and Labour.
Labour in particular have been inept at picking the right battles, and when a battle becomes obviously futile they keep fighting it anyway.
TV3 have just polled on buying shares:
ReplyDelete3 News asked voters in our latest poll, will you buy shares:
17 percent said it was very likely
26 percent said they did not know
57 percent said no, they won’t
The "no, they won't" will be spread between haters, disapprovers, those who can't buy and those who simply don't want to buy.
17% would be a huge share number to apply to buy.
Those questions were asked as part of the same TV3 poll (to the same respondents) from last night (on party vote and preferred PM).
DeleteIt's an invalid poll, because effectively it's asking "Do you support the flagship policy of the party you have just named?". So 17% is actually pretty low.
Polling 101: respondents are influenced by their previous answers, so as not to sound stupid.
I've always been a Labour supporter... I still see myself as left of centre... but in the last election I voted National!!! Eek! I've said it.
ReplyDeleteI was overcome with a feeling of revulsion and instinctive shame shortly after doing so, and yet I still feel that my decision made sense. I was completely uninspired by Labour. I guess it's the curse of being in the Opposition but the whole criticising everything National does just for the heck of it really got to me. Everything they said seemed insincere, and they knew it.
I also felt that they didn't make enough allowances for the fact that we are in a recession. I felt like I could TRUST National (bizarre, I know) to make difficult decisions for the good of the country. I felt that Labour and also the Greens are ideologically wedded to spending more and more and more, and it just doesn't seem practical or wise to me.
By the time the next election comes along, if National are going too far for my centre-left tastes, I'm pretty sure I'll vote Labour again. I guess I'm not as ideological as I thought I was. But I expect I'm not alone.
On the other hand, the much-touted "austerity" has turned out to be "socialism for the rich & capitalism for the poor". It rings hollow for those to say the cupboard's bare, yet at the same time funnelling big bucks to the old boys country club. I am reminded of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which started out as a measure to relieve wartime food shortages, but has since mutated into corporate welfare that's proving difficult to dislodge.
DeleteAnd Labour needs to debunk perceptions that asset sales are a Thorndon Bubble issue. And fast. That means things like invoking the spectre of LIBOR banking/JP Morgan/Merrill Lynch driving up power prices.
Another issue is that John Key has successfully appealed to latent greed and sour grapes by way of wedge politics, which is notoriously difficult to counteract short of a Watergate or Hackgate.
Huh?
Delete