Electorate analysis – Selwyn

I will discuss other electorates after talking to the team up north. But here are the main results from Selwyn, for parties gaining over 100 votes (full results are here). Last elections results for Rakaia (now Selwyn) are here for comparison.

Parties			Candidates
National Party	18,339		ADAMS, Amy	NAT	20,076
Labour Party	8,536		COATES, David	LAB	9,830
Family Party	122		DENNIS, Samuel	FAM	441
Jim Anderton’s Progressive	634		MAIN, Philippa	JAP	1,197
United Future	376		NORMAN, Victoria	UFNZ	227
ACT New Zealand	1,245		WATSON, Ivor	ACT	480
Kiwi Party	172		WILLIAMSON, Eleanor	KIWI	264
			WOODS, Bill	IND	528
Green Party	2,390
Mäori Party	127
New Zealand First Party	1,036
The Bill and Ben Party	171
Party Informals	147		Candidate Informals		367
TOTAL	33,412		TOTAL		33,410

Selwyn is a National seat, and always has been. Quite a few National voters have moved to Act this year however, due primarily to the Emissions Trading Scheme (Act had 869 votes in 05). There has always been Labour support here, but it has dropped significantly this election (from 11,338 in 05), apparantly moving to National, Green and Progressive. It is hard to compare however due to boundary changes and the fact that there was a higher turnout in 2005.

The higher number of informal candidate votes than party votes suggests people are fairly sure which party they want to vote for, but less certain about which candidate they prefer. On the other hand, it could just mean that those who wanted to waste their vote had a joke party to go with (B&B), but no joke candidate, so many B&B voters just spoilt their candidate vote, as those numbers pretty exactly make up the difference…

I received 319 votes from non-Family Party voters (assuming all Family Party voters voted for myself, not necessarily correct). From what I gather speaking to voters, I expect most of these voters gave National their party vote. Those voters I have spoken to wished to secure a change of government, and didn’t want to waste their party vote, but they preferred Family Party policy to that of National.

Bill Woods didn’t do that well, despite being the former mayor, but he had little publicity.

I am very pleased with my votes for a first try, being ahead of the United Future and Kiwi candidates, and close behind the Act candidate and Bill Woods. It will take a lot of work to topple Amy Adams, but that will be a job for the next election now that my name is out there! I was about the most local candidate on offer, most others being recent imports into the area, and I think this gives me a good base to work from.

There is a lot of misunderstanding out there around MMP, and around the policies National had on offer. Many people I spoke to wanted to fix the smacking law, and get rid of the ETS. However they were under the impression that National would do those things, and were surprised to find National policy was to keep them. Some wouldn’t believe me, I’ll have to carry National policy documents with me on my rounds next time! There was a strong faith that National would provide change and fix the policies that annoyed everyone, but few voters had actually looked into their policy. Furthermore, most people thought voting for Amy Adams would help National in some way, not realising that this was a wasted vote as she’d be in on the list regardless. It could be argued that it would actually be better for National to even vote in Coates, as he would have kicked out a more experienced Labour MP, providing National with some advantages in the house!

To take this electorate in future will be a lot of work, as you first have to teach people how MMP works, then teach them National policy, before you can even get on to your own. But it is certainly doable, as National always places a good candidate here that is reasonably high on the list, this being regarded a safe seat – this was Ruth Richardson’s electorate, and Jenny Shipley’s. Logically, it makes little sense to vote for the National candidate here. But to persuade 15,000 voters, half the electorate, will be an interesting challenge for next election.

Vote for The Family Party

Party Vote – The Family Party

——————-

Electorates for a change of government:

Mangere – Jerry Filipaina (Family Party)

East Coast Bays – Paul Adams (Family Party)

Manukau East – Papali’i Poutoa Papali’i (Family Party)

Epsom – Rodney Hide (Act)

Ohariu-Belmont – Peter Dunne (United Future)

Tauranga – Simon Bridges (National)

Everywhere else: Whoever you feel would represent you best, from the Family Party, National, Act or United Future (the only four parties likely to get in that will not go into coalition with Labour).

——————-

I’m flat out on the ground campaigning at the moment, little time to blog, but I think that about summarises what we need to do on Saturday if we are to get rid of Labour! Even if you disagree with my view on the party vote, those electorates are the ones to go for to ensure a change of government, and I’m not just recommending Family Party candidates.

Christian Vote 2008

Andy Moore has put together an excellent website analysing which party is best for Christians to vote for this election. He backs up everything he says with facts. His overall conclusion is:

• Best choice: The Family Party
• Close second: Act
• Not recommended, but better than nothing: National
• Not worth considering: United Future and Kiwi

Putting Kiwi and UF so low may surprise some readers, but as I said he backs up what he says with facts so I would encourage you to read the entire page.

I would add to his electorate recommendations however so it stated:

• Mangere – Jerry Filipaina
• East Coast Bays – Paul Adams
• Manukau East – Papali’i Poutoa Papali’i
• Epsom – Rodney Hide

Remember that these electorate votes are vital in MMP, both Family and Act need to take one electorate each to be represented after the election. Andy recommends National in other electorates, but I would disagree as electorate votes make little difference to the outcome for either National or Labour. Vote for whoever would do the best job in your opinion in other electorates. But Mangere, East Coast Bays, Manukau East and Epsom are vital to vote as recommended above to ensure we have a decent government after the election.

Check out his other websites too: Don’t Vote Labour and Don’t Vote Greens.

Kiwi Party election chances

Ok, we all know the Kiwi Party hasn’t got a hope of gaining any seats this election. They need an electorate seat. They are pinning their hopes on Tauranga, which Baldock will never take in the current political climate.

I have found, when discussing this with Kiwi Party supporters (such as at Being Frank) and even with a Kiwi Party candidate at a “meet the candidates” meeting last night:

Even strong Kiwi Party supporters & candidates know they haven’t got a hope

Yet they are still pushing for party votes, and say “no vote is wasted if you are voting with your convictions”.

This is ridiculous. They know they won’t get in. They know any vote for them will not change the makeup of parliament. Yet they are still trying to take votes off other parties.

If someone is “voting with their convictions”, and likes Kiwi Party moral policy, they will probably also agree with the Family Party policy – and the Family Party actually has a chance of taking electorate seats (Mangere, East Coast Bays, Manukau East). Therefore these moral votes could be used by the Family Party, but will certainly be wasted on the Kiwi Party.

Alternatively these votes could have been used by National, to at least change the government (Kiwi have said they will not work with Labour so must want a change of government).

I have refrained from posting much on this issue up till now, as I don’t like to criticise our Christian brothers & sisters in Kiwi – I wish I was working alongside them rather than against them. But to have even a Kiwi Party candidate clearly understand voting for them would not do anything to change the government, yet still try and take votes we could use effectively, just tipped me over the edge.

If they know they don’t have a hope, they should encourage their supporters to vote for Family or National. Otherwise every bit of campaigning they do makes a Labour-led government MORE likely.

Candidates for Selwyn

The full candidate list for Selwyn is out:

ADAMS, Amy	National Party
COATES, David	Labour Party
DENNIS, Samuel	Family Party
MAIN, Philippa	Jim Anderton’s Progressive
NORMAN, Victoria	United Future
WATSON, Ivor	ACT New Zealand
WILLIAMSON, Eleanor	Kiwi Party
WOODS, Bill	Independent

The most notable names on that list are

• Amy Adams, the National candidate in an electorate National has held for decades.
• Bill Woods, former Selwyn District Council mayor and very well known in the area.
• Samuel Dennis, a local man who has lived in the electorate virtually all his life, whose family have been here since 1868, who has a lot to offer the electorate, and who is writing this post!

I do not recognise any other names from before the campaign, although I have met Ivor Watson, David Coates and Eleanor Williamson now.

Everyone expects this to be won by Amy Adams, National could stand a dead hedgehog in this seat and they’d have a chance, so despite all her good qualities (which I expect are considerable), her greatest one is the fact that she is wearing a National rosette. Bill Woods however is a very strong opponent. He is a long-time NZ First man however, which could work against him in the current political climate, but as he is standing as an independent few people will realise this. So it will be an interesting campaign, being up against these two strong candidates.

I don’t know much about the others. As far as I can gather (from the Malvern News, websites, the White Pages etc):

• Ivor Watson moved to Christchurch in 2005, and has just recently come into the electorate with the latest boundary change.
• Eleanor Williamson appears to live in Westmorland, so is also a Christchurch resident that happens to be just within the new boundary. It does not sound like she has lived here for long based on the Kiwi Party website.
• David Coates has lived in Darfield for 6 years.
• Philippa Main lives in Rolleston, I have no idea how long they have been here.
• Victoria Norman has only been in NZ for 7 years, some of which has been in Wellington, so she can’t have been in Canterbury long. I have no idea where she lives.

So Watson, Williamson, Coates and Norman appear to be newcomers to the area who are unlikely to be known widely. The most well-known candidate will be Bill Woods, probably followed by Amy Adams (due primarily to National’s popularity) and myself.

If you know anything about the candidates I may find useful, please comment.

Colmar Brunton poll September 08

The Colmar Brunton poll is now out, and things continue to look up for The Family Party. The percentages have jumped around a bit again as they always do for the minor parties, due to the error at these low values, but the latest result is:

• NZ First                    2.6%
• United Future           0.7%
• Act NZ                     0.6%
• The Family Party  0.3%
• Christian Heritage    0.2%
• Libertarianz              0.2%
• Kiwi Party                  0.1%
• Progressives            0.1%

The Family Party is sitting on 0.3%, as in July and August. This is not very high yet, we need to push our publicity over the next few weeks, but is steady. We are still the best-supported party outside parliament and are polling higher than two parties with current seats. Family + CH + Destiny (which I have been using to guage the conservative voters that are interested in a Christian party) is once again steady on 0.5%, as it has been for 4 months.

Kiwi is down on 0.1%, once again showing they haven’t a hope this election and conservative voters need to get behind the one party with a chance of actually making a difference – The Family Party. NZ First would be gone if they can’t take a seat, which would make our votes count a bit more. Libertarianz are doing well.

National and Maori Party making deals?

One News has stated that at least one National candidate is telling voters if they won’t vote National, vote for the Maori Party. Winston Peters is chasing the Maori vote too, to try and get over 5%. This is concerning, because if Mr Peters gets over 5%, being ruled out of a coalition deal by National, it makes a change of government less likely.

No National candidate should be recommending people vote Maori:

• The Maori Party is likely to gain more electorate seats than they would be entitled to according to their party vote, just as in 2005, so even though they will have seats the party votes will be wasted.
• The Family Party has strong appeal to many Maori and Polynesian voters, and we could actually use these votes to get more candidates, to strengthen a National-led government.
• Failing that, at least the votes could have been used by National or Act to change the government.

If we want to fix the poor policies of Labour over the past few years, Maori voters must vote for The Family Party, or failing that National or Act. Voting for the Maori Party will waste votes, and a vote for NZ First is a vote for Labour.

Value Your Vote

Family First has launched a new website: Value Your Vote. It lists how each of the party leaders has voted on moral issues over the past few years, and ranks them on how “family friendly” they are, according to which way Family First feels is more “family friendly”. This is a pretty blunt measure as it gives each issue equal weighting, but is very interesting nevertheless.

Surprisingly, Winston Peters comes out top, at 77% family friendly. Helen Clark is worst, scored as only 8% family friendly, even worse than Jeanette Fitzsimons.

The worst two scores are both left-wing (Labour and Green), but other left-wing parties (Maori and Progressive) haven’t scored too badly. In general the centre parties (NZ First and United Future) come out top, with the right (National and Act) not doing too badly.

Unfortunately this chart doesn’t include parties not currently in parliament of course, as they haven’t voted on these issues. As far as I can see, based on policy, The Family Party would top the list at 100% had we been in parliament.

True situation with 1080

Further to my previous post on the Kiwi Party’s poorly thought out vote-buying policy of banning aerial 1080 drops, there has been an excellent article on this issue in the Waikato Times.

This article points out at length all the problems with 1080, and interviews several people about it, most of whom are opposed to it. But even those opposed to aerial 1080 are not suggesting banning it:

Dean Lugton says children used to come to his farm and he would take them hunting in the bush.

“We couldn’t do it this year because of the aerial drop (at the Rangitoto Range),” he says.

“Everyone understands there are areas that they need to use 1080 in but why use it in areas that are totally able to be hunted on?” he says. “You can hunt the Rangitoto, you can walk over it, I have been for 18-19 years. I don’t think it is an area that needs to be bombed with the amount of 1080 they have been using. It is wrecking recreational hunting.”

Read the whole article. These people have serious concerns about the effects of 1080 in particular places where it is used. But they also understand there are only alternatives in accessible areas.

But Paul Etheredge from Ti Miro, whose property is near to where a aerial drop was carried out last year, says he sees 1080 as a “necessary tool for controlling possums”.

“I have no concerns about the way it is done. I would rather see it done some other way but I can’t see any biological control in the pipeline for quite a while,” Mr Etheredge says.

We need to continue research into alternatives, and encourage alternatives where they exist. Hopefully we can eventually stop aerial application of 1080, once we have found an alternative. But we cannot jump to knee-jerk vote-buying “solutions” on this or any other serious issue. Policy must be practical.

Kiwi Party would ban 1080

The Kiwi Party states, in their Family Policy, that they would “ban aerial application of 1080”.

This is a very well-intentioned policy, 1080 is far from perfect and many people would like it banned. However, what do they propose to replace it? You can’t just ban the most effective method of possum control we have without proposing an alternative – the effect on the bush from increased possum numbers could be far worse than the current damage caused by dropping 1080.

I challenge The Kiwi Party to either come up with a practical, cost-effective alternative policy to aerial application of 1080 and propose this as a replacement, or to drop their policy to ban 1080.

Environmental policy must be practical, affordable, and actually help our environment. This policy does not satisfy these criteria.

Rather, this sounds like an emotive policy sub-point designed to attract votes, even though it is impractical, and Kiwi may have no intention of ever putting it in place, knowing that as a minor party they won’t achieve every policy they announce.

If we can move away from 1080 and to something better, that would be excellent. NZ has been trying to move away from aerial 1080 drops for decades, but no alternative has proved anywhere near as effective so far. The Family Party would definitely support moving to a better alternative. We should certainly continue to research alternatives, remembering we are the only country in the world with this particular problem so it is one we must solve ourselves through research.

If the Kiwi party has an actual alternative in mind, I would be very interested in hearing what it is.

But to ban aerial application of 1080 without proposing an alternative is either foolish (possibly a genuine error if they simply don’t understand the issues), or a deceptive vote-gaining ploy.

EDIT:

Not even the Green party is proposing to ban aerial 1080, even they realise that, much as they want to reduce its use, it is still necessary in some circumstances at present.