In science it takes more than a coincidence, or series of coincidences, to prove a hypothesis. There needs to be evidence that the two things are actually linked, that one leads to the other. Apparently no such standard of evidence is required when it comes to linking the outcome of general elections to the results of the Rugby World Cup.
We’re sport mad country, and rugby is our national sport. No argument there. But to suggest that a knockout or a loss during the World Cup could have a material impact on the outcome of a general election shows a level of contempt for voters that I just can’t fathom. I’m just not willing to believe that the outcome of a rugby match would have more of an impact on how people vote than say, taxes, crime, education, health, or the leadership qualities of the candidates on offer.
Those who put forward this argument cite two examples, 1987 and 1999. In 1987 David Lange was leading what was at the time a very popular government. The by then unpopular Muldoon still dominated the National Party (from the backbench) and the stockmarket crash was still months away. Kiwis were proud of our World Cup win for sure, but to suggest that’s why Lange’s government was re-elected is just a bit bizarre.
In 1999 Jenny Shipley had the opposite problem. After 9 years in office voters had tired of National. The spectacular bust-up of NZ First cemented the public’s appetite for change. The All Blacks being knocked out in the semis wouldn’t have had any impact on the election result. Emotion plays a big part in how people vote, but I don’t think Kiwis are going to blame John Key if we don’t win the cup…
I have an idea: We can just change to a four year election cycle and change Governments if the All Blacks lose at the World Cup. If they win we retain the Government.
We save on selecting 1000 candidates for 120 seats, and that whole having a democratic say thing, which is just a waste of time.
LOL
Happy Easter Chris and The Gnat Exterminator 
LAB 
UR 2 
11 !!!!
Agreed, I don’t think there’ll be any retribution at the polls
Chris, it’s as unfathomable as polling impacting the way people vote, but it does. It’s about a national psyche, an emotion. If people feel down (becaus eof a loss) it makes sense their outlook at that point is more negative, conversely a world cup win by the AllBlacks and those whose sense of personal happiness is invested in that will feel untocuahble, on cloud nine, less liekly to delve into the depths of things.
At some level you musyt KNOW these things impact, hence the preoccupation of mr Joyce and his ilk with “hot buttons” and the like, rather than substance of policy during election times.
Chris I generally agreee with you with two reservations. First if Key is seen either to be politically exploiting All Blacks (greasing around changing rooms etc) or lacking confidence (going to election early) then it could be a negative.
The big risk to Key is organisational. If there are transport issues, or we are not seen to take advantage of the tens of thousands of visitors for future business or tourism purposes then it will (fairly) be seen to be government’s fault.
Tracey there is a lot of mythology around a supposed link between All Blacks winning and extra spending or the All Blacks losing and domestic violence. Can’t remember who looked but someone did and nothing found.
The Women’s Refuge will be reassured by your assertion Trevor.
It could be argued that had the All Blacks lost (or drawn) the series with South Africa in 1981, the marginal seats that National held, could have been lost in that year’s election.
Trevor, I just dont know how one would prove or disprove a subliminal link? People dont necessarily vote consciously one way or other because of a loss, but mood must be afactor of some kind.
I don’t know anyone who would admit voting for a govt because of a sport victory or agin them for a loss, but many of those samepeople take their sport VERY seriously, and losses aaand wins make a huge difference to their mood and well-being.
I tend to agree with Tracy in terms of the ‘emotion’ – if we win the cup (fingers crossed but not pinning all my hopes on it) then go to an election, if you were Key you would play up that by going on about how you supported them etc etc and how well everything went, and its because I (as in PM) was always behind them – I had faith etc (we could write his spin now) – the public will be on a high so they will all go on about how great National is for kiwis – good on John for supporting the all blacks etc. His vision is so good etc
BUT, if they lose, kiwis will be down and as Trev has said, if transports a problem, or there are fights or bad sportsmanship, the spin will be harder and people might blame the govt (even if not deserved etc.
I hope they go first – frankly, having all the election PR drive (both sides) in the middle of a world cup wont be fun – all we will see is the all blacks being exploited by Key with one photo op after another – YUCK. He does enough of that smoozle stuff now. It would be bad taste. I would rather enjoy the world cup knowing the election has happened – and I dont fancy our dirty laundry (like the last electon – both sides) being aired in front of the whole world.
“Voters aren’t stupid” well….. stupid might be a bit harsh but some of them are pretty thick. We had people from the general public come on TV last year saying they would vote for National because “it’s there turn now”… That screams thick to me….
paul, me too. I admired so much about Labour and Helen Clark, but was annoyed at how easily they fell into some of the traps being set for them… I never bought the arrogant dicatator branding by National, but many did… Steven Joyce already has one eye on the election…
Michael Jones for Parliament? He was a great rugby player… and does some nice charity work for Samoa, but an MP? National clearly thinks being an ex- All Black is attraction enough. See Boock’s column today in SST…
ps as for voters are not stupid? Not sure I agree – I was hopping mad at Labour for a number of mistakes that needed to be addressed (and being in opposition will help that I hope) – AND to make the matter worse, our family were going to be better off under National in the last election – BUT – despite how I felt, and despite the fact National were (on paper) better for our family, I could not throw away my vote or give it to National. But many voters did not think it through and National are here – like it or not – with great numbers at the polls.
I wonder if we can think back in history for a moment and remember that when English was leader of the opp, he polled really low – then he got rolled and then so did Brash, and by the time Key jumped in the polls were changing – so I ask again – and I know none of the MPs will dish Goff – but given how history tends to repeat – do you really think he can do it? With so many gifts given to Lab from National (mining, nat stds etc etc) I would expect Lab to be polling higher – so why are they not? Come Ann Meeting, surely this will have to be top of the agenda?
paul, sitting PMs always poll higher than opposition, as far as I can recall anyway. Sitting Governments poll well in at least their first term. The shift usually comes with a corresponding shift in the MSM, again not scientific just observation. The media has now begun questioning national rather than rubbing their tiummy like some kind of budha…
If Voter’s arent stupid then why did they elect National
Tracey, it is true – and Micheal is a good example. I want to see people who are passionate and really believe in making a difference, but with the skills to stand up against the bullies. I have not seen that article but the one by Matt Nippert re the new conservatives – (HOS) was good but is a worry.
With respect, “rugby is our national sport” might not be said with as much conviction in days to come.
By the way, Key has already hedged his bets by becoming the All Whites’ patron.
Black or White – the current Govt is moving to cover its positions, flip or flop.
Happy Easter n0exit, Lindsay and Gary Jones
FF can do it! 
It’s not easy what Labour are up against.
@Paul – I think G
@Tracey – I didn’t buy that crap about Clark either
She was nearly lynched as leader because she was unpopular – but look at what she achieved! 
Helen was great – I think she did a great job.
Tracey – You say that sitting MPs always poll higher than than opposition [Leaders?] – in the run up to the 2008 election John Key substantially out-polled Hele Clark almost from the day he was elected as National’s leader.
I also think you lefties need to really consider why you lost the 20008 election. There were so many reasons, including the corruption of Winston Peters. But the rot strated for Labour with legislation like the EFA, the anti-smacking the lack of tax cuts, and the Benson-Pope affairs. Foir Labour it was the death the death of a thousand cuts. I thoroughly enjoyed watching every cut being inflicted.
Now history will repeat. National will remain untouchable in this term. In 2014 National will race a new Labour party smarting from a heavy 2011 defeat, and in 2017 National will be finally evisted after the pain of the 1000 custs starts to hurt and bleed. In addition National will by 2017 be showing all the arrogance and conceit that Labour have showed.
National’s advantage (or is this a disadvantage) is that Key is not the polarising figure Clark was (and remains) Personally I never had one minute for her, and have always remained puzzelled at the left’s adoration. But Key is a different type of person – and even traditional Labour supports like him and trust him. And there lies Labour’s problem.
The rugby world cup will have a very minor impact on the election. I agree voters are not stupid, and can seperate sport and politics. But in 2011 there will be no reason to change the government, and in fact (and like 2002 and 1987) the goernment will be returned with an increased majority.
Bugger – no editing feature – the first line should read “sitting PMs always poll higher than opposition [learers]“
Happy Easter M onty
Comments are closed on the caption section, I for one never felt ill towards Clare or Chris, just pleased to see the party enjoying alcohol
Let’s hope that more will be drunk if we win the world cup and election!
@Monty.
I hope you are wrong. National is making so many mistakes. What about the referendum that was sent out asking about smacking, when National knew already that they weren’t going to change it back. How much money did that waste? There are alot of other examples that I hope NZers will remember too. what about the fact even though they put up the min wage people are worse off
“Even with the 25-cent government handout, the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand are actually 5 cents worse off than they were last April.
According to Statistics New Zealand, since this Government came into office we have experienced the smallest increase in wages in a decade. After inflation average workers are earning less than a year ago.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-political-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502734&objectid=10636134
Monty, clearly I was making a generalisation in the ocntext of a discussion about emotional influences on voting trends. There are always exceptions and third term PM’s are one.
Can you try and discuss things with me without throwing around vacuous labels like “Lefties”.
You make some good points, although Winston’s failure was cleverly but wrongly tagged to Labour and Clark by a clever and misleading branding campaign by NACT. Key has already shown in his first 18 months thathe doesn’t volunteer information not asked for, yet this is what Clark was roundly condemned for over the Owen Glen/Peters spat.
I absolutely agree with your point about Benson-Pope. That was appalling, as was the Ruth Dyson expulsion from Cabinet and then reinstatement… while Dover was banished before any guilt proven and remained banished after charges dropped…there was certainly a long string of them.
I agree National will be returned at the next election. Key is as likeable now as Clark was in her first term. No, I dont know the poll results, yet he ios showing every bit of arrogance that she was tagged withlater inher time as PM. I do think it will take til the second term, the sale of some Auckland assets and the beginning of selling off ACC ( in the face of a very glowing appraisal by PWC)and as you say, the trickle-down painof what is being laid now, before enough will see past the tefln smile.
By the way those of you who believe that such superficial things as winning world cups in a sport mad nation dont really have uch bearing, might enjoy reading some research done on juries and what impacted their decisions.
There are reasons why advertisers spend millions on subliminal and “hot button” srategies, because they work. National proved the same thing from 2005-2008. They will do it again.
Voters aren’t stupid, just get conned by promises not kept.
If govts are all about transparency then at election time all policies that a govt wants to introduce should be laid out on the table for all to see. Too often we are given policies and laws not mentioned at election time, probably because they are unpalatable to voters.
Why did Labour lose the last election? Over taxation of voters.
Which party conned us with promises of tax cuts – National, and who is going to benefit from tax cuts, not the majority of voters.
In fact National has increased taxation!
I think one of the biggest problems with how govts in this country are run is that for each successive govt that comes to power spends most of their time trying to undo the previous govt policies. Why can’t you all find some middle ground acceptable to both so we can all move forward as a country!
Labour made mistakes, which parties dont after 7 years or so. Sadly some of their mistakes fed the picture being carefully crafted in the backrooms of National. I have no doubt that Labour has its own backrooms, and strategies but traditionally Labour doesnt have the big money backers. The BRT for example was almost silent for 7 years… within days of the National win they were congratulating them and setting out a nice agenda for them to follow…
I actually thought that Labour went some way to embracing business and business “ideals” and wants over its terms. So far I have seen nothing to suggest National is actually departing from its idea that the people and workers are anything but a nuisance tot he greater plan. He seems nice (Key) and he seems ordinary, but really??? I’m with Dylan anyone who voted for Key because they thought he represented ordinary ought to look at his CV, his personal worth and find that he is not like one of us (NO I am not saying he is bad for being successful, I am saying he is not ordinary, for being successful)- His occupation is not for the faint hearted… Nice guys dont come first, not without some decisions along the way which leave a sour taste in the mouth.
People seem to have forgotten he was knee-deep in the Brash, Joyce Bretheren capers… He showed his teflon-ness then…
I think the constituency Key & Joyce et al have tapped into are what’s known as the Kath-and-Kim brigade in Australia (who voted for John Howard) and Joe the Plumber in the States (who supported McCain & Palin).
Mark: regarding partisanism, I suspect it’s the symptom of an American-style red-blue state divide re-emerging in NZ.
Monty, I am glad that Labour stuck to its guns and refused to offer tax cuts. Our public services were run down between 1990 and 1999, and National were closing hospitals left right and center. (Can someone enlighten me how many hospitals Labour closed after 1999). Tax cuts would have broken our health system, and left single mothers out on the street.
If there was a problem with incomes, then employers should have pulled their collective finger out and given their workers a pay rise.
I think if people are feeling generally grumpy, that’s more likely to have an impact on the election, but I don’t think losing the World Cup alone would have much of an impact.
I think the point Trevor makes is important though, if the ‘hosting’ of the whole event is a dogs breakfast, people will rightly blame the govt for that. Coupled with turmoil during the first year of the ‘Super City’ that could swing quite a few votes in Auckland in particular.
@ m illsy – agreed.
No doubt about the stupidity of voting as there is no doubt about deliberate lies spun before elections. Even worse than the lies and not so hidden agenda is the way our media presents news.
It is well known that a sensational headline that is untrue excites and draws people attention. This usually invites strong comment including reactionary views also often unbalanced. It is surprising how much of the rubbish is taken aboard by many. The process is open to manipulation and is used regularly for political ends.
NZ has little in its aims by way of national goals except what is pushed through media and generally by the right wing, as there lies the power and influence of money.
The economy is the main goal we seem to have almost unquestioned. Growth is another crazy goal accepted by all parties because if there is any change from these then the real powerhouse of public opinion will mobilise against any criticism of these two sacred cows. This is driven by media with with the full gamut of old hat thorny arguments, fear, slogans and clap trap. It usually works. Who controls the media – hardly NZ interests.
The bigger picture shows that the economy as presently managed by the commercial and finance sectors and all the right wing including Labour, has very serious consequences for the population and resources if continued in its present form.
No party is brave enough to try and change how we work our wealth distribution which at present seems to have little to do with all the old catch cries about who deserves what. Where do parties see the distribution of wealth will head as more of NZ’s wealth is being fed to off shore international wealthy. As a larger percentage of our wealth is captured by a very small group then the biggest part of our society takes a cut in what is available for them and the massive bottom end ends with a tiny proportion that shrinks annually.
Where does this take us in the future. The voters are
stupid to swallow the hype and spin over how our economy operates and for whom.
Growth is another problem as it is geared to an economic model as outlined above so the more produced then the more imbalanced the distribution becomes.
Business as usual is not a sustainable path and neither is growth. Crumbs do not provide a stake for a large portion of our NZ population.
Efficiency is hardly streamlining the system to help accumulate more for the few. TAX CUTS???
The market that looks after people deals is simple things such as basic food and nutrition, health and care for all, simple housing, sound education and thinking and with selfless government serving people.
Our priorities are neglected for whom. The voters are dumb and I suggest this is how some like it.