A lesson in Politics 101 for Goff and Labour
How long can National stay up to 30% in support ahead of Labour? As long as Labour lets them, is the short answer.
The latest TV3 poll shows the Nats on a long-term unrealistic 58.1%, and Labour trailing by an equally silly 29.2%.
Come election day, whenever that may be, that gap will be much closer.
Labour had only fallen by a margin of 0.8% while National were up 2.1%, showing the Government is attracting fickle support from third parties and the collapsed NZ First vote. That won't stay.
The Labour Party need not panic yet. It has a reasonably solid base from which it can rebuild if it takes it slowly and picks its targets.
The problem is at the moment the Opposition is pursuing a scatter-gun approach, attacking virtually any utterance by the Government with a knee-jerk hostility.
This largely falls on deaf ears and the danger is the public will obstinately ignore more serious and well-reasoned arguments that Labour may make in the future because it has become inured to the party's whingeing.
Labour won the Mt Albert by-election because it had a couple of very clear simple messages on the Waterview extension and the Super City, and pounded them home at every opportunity at a community level.
Okay, Melissa Lee also repeatedly shot herself in the foot, which must have been a help, but surely the lesson is for Labour to keep its targets few, simple, well defined and popular for it to oppose.
If it maintains this kind of disciplined approach it can also count on windfall gains from whatever future Lee-type mistakes National MPs and ministers may commit.
Believe me, whenever you're in government, individual cock-ups occur on a regular basis and if you look back over the last six months National has committed more than its fair share of them.
It is impossible to discern any over-arching strategy to Labour at the moment, just a jumble of small tactical firefights that soon peter out to little effect.
It should be using this early period in opposition to rebuild the foundations of its broad policy so as to starkly define what it is and what it stands for.
Having re-established its brand it can then move on to identify a very few key issues and then hammer them hard.
These few key issues need to be based around popular feeling and capable of attracting greater grass roots support. Don't over-intellectualise the argument and keep the ideological rhetoric to a minimum. The public have had enough of ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum.
It needs to remain unified behind a commonly accepted approach and, above all else, it must avoid capture by the extreme left.
Helen Clark spent nearly two decades wedging Labour into the centre, with lip service to the Left. However, now John Key is rapidly assuming the centre ground, with similar lip service to the Right.
Lose the middle vote and you will consistently lose elections.
So Labour, keep your heads, breathe through your nose for a while, figure out what you are and what you need to say, maintain discipline and you may be surprised by just how quickly you can make a comeback.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Basically right. There's no way National can sustain that lead - largely based on the popularity of John Key as a front figure - especially once the economy starts falling apart. The world's biggest economy - USA - is about to be sent down, and the shock waves will be terrible. But even without that, we're barely scraping by ( thanks to Ag exports ) , running on borrowed money and, apparently, an IMF austerity program. Note that Michael Cullen paid down National debt. Now we're greatly increasing it. Bold monetary/fiscal moves are needed - along with nationalising of the banks. But, at this rate, we face an economy in foreclosure and liquidation - by the private banks.
Phil Goff, and Labour generally, have been upfront about most things..... should get them Brownie points, and I'm surprised that the public can't see Goff's ability. He's always been a capable PM in waiting, and if Clark had gone earlier, as she should have, Goff might be PM now. After the election, Goff did rightly say that it was the social engineering - specifically the Anti-Smacking Bill - which lost them the vote. True, and shows better perception than Clark - who thought that social engineering would never harm her.
It is a huge issue still, despite Labour trying to kill it off by not holding the Referendum ( cheaply ) during the election, as they should have. Now all parties ( but ACT ) are trying every trick to support this United Nations initiated 'one world' legislation while ignoring the NZ public.
In the first week of the Referendum alone, 570,000 people voted. But now Phil Goff has joined those who say it is all misleading and not valid. No it isn't. People understand it very well, and in fact the Referendum question is too kind to the Bradford camp because it uses 'light smacking' as the default definition, when Bradford's Law never even mentions Smacking. It aims at, and criminalises, ALL " force " ( including restraint ) used against chidren. Absurd, but dangerously true.
So those wanting the UN to run the country should vote Yes ( why do our own thinking ? . But if in doubt, vote No....it's much safer. Meanwhile, to celebrate, download my new Sue Bradford SPANKING SONG free at bobberesford.com . It's a lot of fun and ends with Sue having her bum ceremoniously spanked in parliament to test appropriate spanking force ( someone has to do it ).
I suspect Labour won the Mt Albert by-election because it's one of the safest Labour seats in the country, not a very good example of Labour's use of opposition.
bobberesford.com #2
Buddy what fairy land are you living in? At the moment NZ couldn't give a stuff about Labour and especially Phil Goff
bobberesford.com #2
Although I agree with quite a number of points you make, the following I don't "Phil Goff, and Labour generally, have been upfront about most things....".
Clearly with the loose cannon and behind backdoor bumff over the several issues like the beneficiary saga, Worthgate, the chap in Helensville and the somewhat hypocritical remarks that come out during question time the house, demonstrate that there are quite a few internal problems with Labour.
Bottom line is it is the leadership and Goff just doesn't stack up well against Key. As usual with politics it comes down to who people warm to more (however unrealistic that may be) and although Goff is a strong senior politician, he doesn't seem to have the "it" factor. I think if Labour has any chance of picking up the next election it will need some leadership changes. Smarmy Cunliffe with his Harvard-nose doesn't appeal, King with the defacto-Cullen attack dog mentality doesn't convince. There are some upcoming Labourites who will be frustrated.
I'm quite happy with progress under Key and I struggle to find anything on the Labour side that would convince me to vote for them.
Labour's job is to be an effective opposition. That's what they are doing. And as you say Bill, National's giving them plenty to respond to. It must be hard to know what to leave out! Having read most of Labour's press releases its all relevant to what's happening at present.
In its first year a government gets all the contentious stuff underway or out of the way - so Her Majesty's Official Opposition party must respond. In the second year it's completing as much of that as it can - and in the third its cosying up to the electorate at large. HMOO has got to call it as it sees it at any time of the electoral cycle, otherwise it is not doing its job.
Bugger the polls (with apologies to Jim Bolger). They are only relevant in election year.
I think it's ridiculous that on tv they're looking at the polls and saying, 'if there was an election today..." there isn't going to be an election for ages. the polls today have nothing to do with how we are going to vote at the next election. A lot can and will happen between now and then. I have a lot of respect for Phil Goff and think he's a great choice for Labour as current leader. He may not last until the next election though, that's just the reality of politics. I hope he does, I can't see anyone else in Labour standing out as a worthwhile alternative, not yet anyway.
I wouldn't call what they're doing whinging, they are just pointing out faults in the new government. I don't think that they're doing anything wrong - I just think that people are busy living their lives and politics is low on their list of priorities. The election was only last year, a lot of people won't give politics much thought until 2011.
Labour needs to pick its targets and basically fight the battles they know they can score points with the electorate on, this can be done by doing what National did in 9 years in opposition - get out and listen to the people, their MPs have to be visible in the electorates and hear and act on the issues that are important to voters NOW. I agree with Bill people are sick of ideology talk. An example trying to hammer the Government on the audit of our top welfare recipients won't curry much favour because most people are who are finding times tough in this recession are sick of their taxes been spent on exorbitant welfare payments
Come on Bill , all last year national talked in generalities yet it was highly likely they would be the next government, this year Labour talks in generalities and a new election is 30 months away and you criticise them for not having a central theme ? Im sure if they had something to relentlessly focus on National would work night and day to nuetralise it. Its not good politics to show your hand too early.
"The Labour Party need not panic yet. It has a reasonably solid base"
Not so sure about that. Ok, they have the Union membership as compulsary affiliates but actual dues paying voluntary members? I doubt its more than a few thousand.