Why Labour can win
Posted by Trevor Mallard on August 1st, 2010
I got confirmed as Labour’s candidate for Hutt South last weekend.
It is a pretty open secret that I don’t like opposition and that I considered retiring. I decided that we could win and that while the 2008 intake is brilliant they could do with a few more experienced hands helping them Phil and Annette in government.
It is going to be an uphill battle, but it may well be that the events of last week galvanise the caucus and the party in the same way as the failed May 96 coup did for the Clark led Labour Party.
Mike Smith on the Standard has a good post today:-
Chris Carter is wrong. Labour can win the next election led by Phil Goff. The objective conditions make it possible, and there is enough time. That’s true even if Key calls an early election to gain the financial benefits of National’s new electoral law, as some have predicted on this site.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, August 1st, 2010 at 4:03 pm and is filed under Labour Party.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Waterboy it is scary, but Labour will fight!
!
Come on! Fight fight fight!!!!!
Reid, “Mac, the polls don’t agree with you. The polls show that most people apparently believe Key is a fresh young successful intelligent kind and wise family man with wholesome values and a wonderful family.”
Never said the polls agree with me. Generally polls disagree. Probably something I ate. I said that the trends are for us. And closing.
As for the rest of it. Tell me where in the polls they say that about Key. I think there is a bit of a spoon being wielded in a circular motion there, Reid, you unsung hero, you. You’ve been busy tonight. BTW.
Trevor
I cannot see how Labour can get back into govt in 2011 even if Key has a brain explosion.
To do so you need to form a coalition between Labour, Greens and probably NZ First. It is most likely that the Maori Party will stick with father Xmas.
Who in their right mind is going to vote for a party with the Greens, Winston and Laws sitting at the cabinet table?
We need some businesses and skilled workers to stay in NZ.
My 10cents, How to win – Attack ACT, Cosy up with Maori (remind them where their voters want them to go), and hope NZ First resonates with rural/older conservatives. Consider rather than poo poo their protectionist ideas. And call Key out for his position (For Invst). Oh and attack the issues by attacking the ministers rather than Key. Attack Key with concrete flip flops, deception, lies + “what have you done with this promise (cycleway, catch Oz, Employment)”.
And yes he will have to campaign on asset sales (why he wants Poli Capl), Do you not remember the English tapes? They have been consistent in saying n ot in first term. Listen and not the front bench, but some second tier ministers will propose, put an argument and Key will be listening to see which ones people will agree to and campaign on this. After the election he can always widen the group and claim a mandate to sell everything because he campaigned on an asset sale agenda for just A or B that it doesn’t make sense for govt to hold.
If Labour wants to win in 2001 here is the formula for their only chance – promise to:
1. Repeal the ETS.
2. Repeal the anti smacking law.
3. Replace WFF with tax cuts.
4. Sell Cullens Train set and a few other assets.
5. Mine conservation land.
6. Get Winston to repay the $158,000 he owes NZ taxpayers.
Too radical you say.
Lange, Palmer, Douglas, Prebble, Goff, Clark and co got things underway in the 80’s.
Go for it!!!
Its a laugh a minute this morning, pd-em says “Labour you will be winners if you become more right blue than National”
You forgot point 7 about winning the backing of the ROund Table
Loota – good to see you took my suggestion to heart because the people I mentioned did get the support of the Business Round Table.
“Attack ACT”
= not running a Labour candidate in Epsom then?
Can Labour Win? Run a campaign “Lets Get NZ Back To Work”. Unemployment is growing each week in Marlborough and the locals know the real numbers are a lot bigger. 1 in 10 rental houses are empty ( first time in 20 years, Marl Express), did landlords vote for Key, when will their patience run out with do-nothing policies?. If it’s the economy, stupid, it’s stupid to not talk about the economy.
@pdm: You also forgot Point 8: Build a nuclear warhead facility on the North Shore and brag about the jobs and engineering expertise. Demonstrate that expertise on the Pacific Islands.
I think Labour’s only chance is if the economy goes south next year and they can link it explicitly to National changes, some interesting political research I read recently shows that the result of elections is largely based on income the year preceeding the election, if it goes up the incumbent stays, down the incumbent loses… Campaigns and leaders count for less of the result than economics…
It is also importantly to remember that there has only been two one term government’s since Savage was PM – both Labour…
LLLLLLabbbbooouur is up in the polls!!! Yee haa!!! n
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/labour-12-ahead-in-the-polls/
Aw come on
, well I think it’s gonna happen 
Pigs flying yet?
Yeah, I fell for it
, but I still think it could happen 
JMH – Is there any link between All Black results and the incumbent party?
Simon, political parties themselves seem to think so, even if they don’t say so openly, other than with tongue in cheek.
Can National win?
John Key isn’t sure …
“Prime Minister John Key has not ruled out working with New Zealand First in the future.
The latest Roy Morgan poll put NZ First at 4.5 percent, almost enough to get the party back into Parliament without any electorate seats.
Recent speculation has suggested Whanganui mayor and radio host Michael Laws would stand for the party.
Mr Key said today he would decide whether he would work with NZ First leader Winston Peters when he announced whether he was running or not.”
If he’s certain to win, why would he even need to think about working with Peters? He ruled him out in 2008. Why not now?
Doesn’t say much for his confidence, does it?
@ Sammy – Labour wouldn’t work with the “haters and wreckers” / last cab off the rank back in the day either.
Do you think they will now? Using your logic it would show that they are desperate.
One thing you can be assured of – if Key was going to work with them – they would have him on a tight reign – not doing anything to protect and hide like labour did in the “its all about trust” campaign.
Go Winnie!
!
Coolas at ‘The Standard:
‘United we stand, divided we fall,’ seems an appropriate slogan for all on the Left right now.
The Labour Party and Phil Goff now have a God given chance to put the above sentiment by Coolas into practice.
The Council of Trade Unions has announced that it will be holding Fairness at Work rallies on 21st August in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.
Wouldn’t it be great if Phil Goff joined the union leaders on the podium to denounce the government’s attacks on working people and their unions?
It would lift Labour’s profile, if the party, called on the wider membership and supporters to fully support these rallies in their nearest centre. The resulting Labour Party banners, flags and posters being carried by Labour Party supporters could be the dominant TV image at these rallies.
Wouldn’t Labour gain the respect and support of working people if they made such a stand in support of working people?
Has a call from the top not gone out yet to the wider Labour Party membership re Aug 21?
If it hasn’t, I wonder what’s the hesitation…
@Chris
Of course Labour would work with the Maori Party. They’d probably work with the Chatham Islands Popular Front. Because Labour are polling low.
But National are supposed to be “guaranteed” victory. If Labour “can’t win”, then Key can’t lose (stop me if the logic has lost you).
But this is demonstrably false. Key proves it. He knows he could still lose. Hence the overtures to Winston.
If the PM won’t write off Labour, who are we to disagree?
@Jenny 2 – Agreed – Let’s unite
And fight fight fight! 
!
Key is flying a kite to see what the reaction to coalition with Peters would be. He can then read the tea-leaves and burn the entrails, and after make his decision. It’s what he always does, isn’t it? Then later he can back down saying he had listened to the people.
@Simon, not sure sorry, I can’t remember the last time an election was so close to a RWC… 1987, 1999..?
1987 AB’s won Labour won
1999 AB’s loss National lost
Where’s Paul the octopus when you need him?
On the bright side I have arrived home drunk, pity I have to sober up due to lack of supplies in house
Key keeping Winny on the flip flop will reduce support for the champion of then mighty Gold Card.
the
Labour can win because of a great leader and a kick ass caucas
Winnie might be King maker, I feel indebted to him for making the right choice last time 
Forget the biast rubbish that immoral people say about Goff.
Perhaps Lab could display a reconnection with families.
Allow parents to regain their ability to parent. Not by allowing some 3rd party to sign off for abortions for daughters without any prior knowledge by parents. What other medical condition warrents authorithy to be given unbeknown to parents wishes.
Also reverse the crap S59 act.
Actions such as these have left parents undermined by pollys. Parents have the skills to parent and should be left to perform their loving function, if you believe that parents do not have the skills then have the fortitude to come out and say so, that Lab believes that parents in NZ are unfit to parent.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/thisweek/hourrecs/Mon,%20Aug%202%2010.00%20trn-newstalk-zb-akl.asf
Also have some decent policies that are not isolated wish lists that we the voter can see how different policies dovetail to achieve and improved NZ, and for once be honest and have a tax policy that hits the targets not the crap of protecting property speculators, landlords, and the hollow rhetoric of tax reform that protects the wealthly and what is worse to be aware of such measures before the policies are enacted.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10648752
But please remember JFK “Not What the country can do for you….” As this I think has not been evident in any party
Labour can win because quite simply they actually give a damn about the ordinary, working people of New Zealand. Labour can win because the country is getting sick and tired of people smiling, waving, making empty promises, screwing them around and breaking the aforementioned empty promises. Labour can win because goddamit we need them to!!!
Labour can win because of all of us, all of us who believe in a true progressive, caring Government for the people of NZ, and all of us who believe that NZ is about far more than the cold bottom line of dollars and cents.
We’re going to work damn hard to throw those NACTs out of power and not a moment too soon.
Ella & Loota as my comments are in moderation (????) the govts of the last 20 years have not displayed any caring other than looking after their own means. Sure some of the needy were assisted of late but so were ALL the rich and famous.
If we donot measure what we had and what NZ society represented then how do we know if progression or regression is taking place.
Many would comment that NZ has regressed over the years, and we do not know what NZ stands for.
Perhaps the next govt may change the direction, but I have my doubts.
“Many would comment that NZ has regressed over the years, and we do not know what NZ stands for.”
If we look at the world over the last 700 years in 50 year blocks the only absolute is that the world is getting better and the majority of people think it’s getting worse…
JMH from a Rennaisance historians perspective what you are saying maybe true.
But (no offence intended) who gives one?
Why are you referencing NZ society since 1310?
What is that supposed to mean to someone born in 1960, 1970 or 1980?
I mean, we have more fridges, TVs and cars per capita now (I suppose this is what you mean by “the world is getting better” i.e. consumer living standards have increased?), but I don’t see peoples’ happy levels going up at the same rate as their LCD TV screen size, do you?
In our country today on the day your born the minimum who are expected to live is 78 years and during our lives we experience an amount of the world, have knowledge of how the world around us works, have freedoms and have a living standard completely unbelievable to even those who landed on our shores in 1300 or 1830…
My point is the statement NZ has “regressed over the years” is wrong, we live in one of the safest, freest, prosperous and most peaceful countries in the history of the world… We have a government that is trying to be all things to all people and getting very little done in the face of growing environmental and economic problems, but lets keep some grasp of reality…
*minimum YOU are expected
Well I don’t know about all that stuff mate, but in the last 20 years our economic wealth and per capita income vis a vis Australia has definitely regressed.
I agree with you on one thing though JMH, NZ remains one of the most blessed places on Earth to live…that’s why I’m still here.
I should say, I don’t know how old you are, but when I was born males definitely did not have a life expectancy of 78 years of age…
I guess that figure only applies to NZ males born in 2009/2010.
We haven’t regressed, we’ve progressed and they’ve progressed faster… The only reason it’s such a massive problem in the CER…
You’re right the current males’ life expectancy is 78, that’s why I said, “In our country today”…
Formula One cars go real fast, even the slowest car on the grid goes faster than any road car possibly can. However when the difference in lap time with the leaders gets ever larger and you keep falling further and further behind I guess you could say that you are still moving forwards in absolute terms (’progress’ of you will), its just that you are definitively falling further and further behind the pack (’regress’ if you will).
I guess its positive you view it as a glass half full, but I’m a little ambivalent about that.
If we have progressed, why then are double income families struggling to cope financially, 30 years ago a traditional family coped on a single income, violence was not as it is today. Perhaps they even had the drinking laws correct (6:00 closing !!!!! perhaps not)We lived on real sections not postage stamps that cannot even allow clothes lines to fit. There was more community focus. More families could enjoy holidays of past. All facits of the soc economic groups could holiday together in cribes at the beach, we played sports across the spectrum and even more widely socialised, now we are contained in an increasing class (Wealth) bands.
Life expenctancy may have risen, but in the future as retirement age increases (we live longer to remain in the rat trap), health consumes such great quantities of resiurces sometime (Soon with the potential W) we will have to face what we are willing to pay for and what consequences that will take.
Herodotus
I wonder if also it is to do with technology, including TV.
It’s not just that we are inclined to a more sedentary life, and the implications healthwise, but also in terms of inter action with our community, but where my generation grew up initially without tv and then with it, we still came home, did homework, played outside (I didnt pay organised club sport until I was 15), BUT my nephews, aged 17 and 15 are quite a contrast. One is like we were, rides his bike alot, goes skateboarding, hangs with his friends, the other is mainly glued to his computer.
In addition TV has beamed other possible lives into our living rooms, with attendant commercial advertising, and somehow people’s expectations have skyrocketted. Even a pay rise is soon gobbled up by the middle and above classes by more “things” or “travel”.
My parents RARELY travelled. Dad did for his job, but I only recall he and mum taking one holiday together without us during a rocky time in their marriage. A rarity for them and their peers.
Now it is very unusual for a middle class family to NOT travel overseas, Australia, Fiji or wherever.
Herodotus, are you sure violence was less prevalent? I mean, we had things like a couple of wars last century to cull the population, sure great people went to war and died, but a few psychopaths were culled too, we gave them medals for bravery (wink).
Greater numbers living closer together without a war for culling probably lends itself to more violence.
I was stunned to learn earlier this year that one of my bothers and his partner had, until she was made redundant, been earning 160k combined… why? Because they were always struggling financially. Now he has to pay $900 per month child support and they had her teenage daughter with them, her father paid next to nothing in support. BUT some of that is about my brother (money is like sand in his hands) and she prior to meeting him being a working solo mum…
Children are expensive but I observe a combination of two things;
Parents giving their children alot, from stuff to regular movies, outtings, birthdays seem to be mini weddings,
Parents expecting to do all of the above and still do what they want to
One of my regrets from losing my mother when I was only 22 was never being grown up enough to have realised how much she sacrifice for us, always putting us first, going without etc
I’m sorry to hear that.
@Herodotus, I do so love the rose tinted glasses, the economy was a basket case, our entire economy was based on a chimera (and therefore standard of living) and for 40 years we rode it and rode it well but we could not resist the forces of change forever…
Health is going downhill because of people’s choices and in many cases personal finances are screwed because people chose to overconsume…
Overconsuming seems to be the cause of both problems then
Last nights TV3 News was interesting to watch as was this NZ Herald article to read…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10663885
Is that the same herald with the rigged poll?