Posted by JC on January 26th, 2012
Here’s the tape that’s caused all the fuss. Fairfax has confirmed that it’s the real thing.
After listening to it, you might well decide that it is truly a storm in a teacup. But – it got Winston Peters and his motley crew into Parliament, so the PM may now be wishing he’d released it on the spot!
It’s difficult to decipher, but here’s a link to a transcript on The Jackal’s blog.
Yes, the tape is as pathetic as the two talking on it. “Yeah yeah mate” seems to be the PM’s main point. The other has-been sounds like a ping pong bat bouncing the same drivel back.
I am comforted to know that crime in this country is at such low levels that police have the resources to investigate this complaint with such assiduity. It is good for Key to know that while police investigate this trivia we no longer need to worry about child abuse, rape and other violent offences.
Slightly off topic it must be galling for Mr Dotcom to know that had he been as serial child molester he would now be on bail. The lesson is that you offend the Prime Minister and/or the USA at your peril.
John Banks is a muppet.There was a section of the tape missing?
why didn’t he release it? I think Winston got in on the Gold Card. Got one?
“it got Winston Peters and his motley crew into Parliament, so the PM may now be wishing he’d released it on the spot!”
However, in politics it is all about how you address mistakes when they (inevitably) happen. Key played it very well today. Despite someone flagrantly defying a ruling of the court, and ultimately undermining the privacy of us all, what was Key’s reaction?
Despite the political embarrassment, there were no bitter complaints, as per “Corngate” about the “little creep” who orchestrated the situation.
Neither was there any bleating about juvenile plot theories as per Crosby Textor, and the Exclusive Brethren.
Nor was there a massive micro-managing over-reaction to try and ensure a similar situation never happens again, as per the Electoral Finance Act (which effectively determined the outcome of the 2008 election years before it was contested).
Instead, a smile, a shrug of the shoulders, and a joke that he might get around to watching it.
And regulars on this blog can’t figure out why the majority of Kiwis like John Key?!
I’m having trouble understanding how you can launch an attack on the Herald about the ethical standards of their reporting, when you’ve jumped on the bandwagon to publish a private conversation which is under police investigation — and, which came about by a clear violation of privacy.
Having the media present to publicise a meeting between two political figures, is one thing; the underhanded and surreptitious planting of a listening bug to record the conversation — and make no mistake, because that’s what it was — is something else.
Can anyone really be so friggin’ naive as to believe that how our pollies comport themselves within the public arena, should be consistent outside the public gaze?
Helen Clark is a case in point; when it came to paying lip service, she was without peer.
JC: Edited. Defamatory.
I understand where you’re coming from, Merv, but there has been no decision to date as to whether or not the conversation was ‘private’. Legal opinion is divided. Your confident assertion that the recording device was ‘surreptitiously planted’ is extremely dubious. This, too, has yet to be determined. We believe it’s in the public interest for the tape to be published – as do many, many other people who have linked to this original publication on YouTube. We’ll take our chances.
Interesting anyone would still consider this to have been a private conversation. In one of Auckland’s busier cafes, I don’t see how anyone could consider their conversation private. Specially when they have spent several days ensuring a large media pack would assemble to observe it.
But at least we all now have the PM’s number (about 06:26 in to the tape). If he’s giving it to Banksie he can’t be too fussy about who has it! Given how poll-driven Mr Key seems to be, I’m sure he’ll appreciate our feedback.
Agree with Robert. The tape is probably not private, if the JK brigade could stop taking his assertions as gospel that would be nice.
Also enjoying an overlap between the anti-regulation, anti tax payer money spending, anti nanny state, pro personal responsibility brigade and the ‘tape is private’ brigade.
If you wish to have a private conversation you should probably not have it at a public venue, especially as a public figure, and it may help not to invite the media. You should take care to protect your own privacy in a public place, the same way you protect your cash card pin. These are not things that should necessarily be protected by the state. Your privacy is only truly sacrosanct in places you could legitimately expect to have that privacy.
Meanwhile tax payer money is spent on an investigation into what is really and truly a non-event. It is amazing that John Key can dismiss most issues with a shrug, a joke and sentence beginning with ‘look’. Maybe if someone actually pressed him for answers, and questioned the deficit between his promises and reality, between stated outcomes and likely outcomes, between some of his assertions and fact, we might see a darker side. It’s okay for your mate to make assertions and address issues with a joke and a smile, the same is not true for the leader of your country.
Ben I don’t think the police are investigating the drivel on the tape but the fact that a member of the media taped a conversation without permission and then onsold it to a newspaper. Is this the road you’d like to see us go down?
it got Winston Peters and his motley crew into Parliament
Bollocks. It had nothing to do with Winnie and all to do with a repeated and deliberate attempt to corrupt the democratic process and maintain power for the Right. From which blatant rort the taping beat-up was a convenient vehicle of distraction for our openly Rightist media.
Winnie got back because he by-passed the media in halls and clubs after the media made it crystal-clear in 08 that they wanted him dead, and gave him zero coverage since. When the media was forced into some semblance of neutrality for the brief election period, Winnie soared on the back of his only appearances in three years.
For the same reason, Goffy ascended and Key faced his first media challenge ever – resulting in the hissy-fit walkout and knife-edge, Pyrrhic electoral “victory”.
Interesting times ahead. No more scapegoats for the hatemongers (Brash’s racism redux a flop, and “welfare reform” already a fizzer), the “Key-ring” of confidence severely dented, and the neo-lib intellectual capital about to finally crash dramatically. With any luck, the scabrous remnants of a once-proud fourth estate will go with it.
The shame of being seen by an adoring public to be just an adolescent taking part in an inane un-Primeministerial conversation, is what drove Mr Key to try and hide using valuable police resources to do so. Feet of clay!
Lyn, I did not say ‘drivel on the tape’. I referred to the matter as ‘trivia’.
No, I do not want to go down the road of having private conversations taped. Neither do I wish to go down the road of the police expending resources, calling for witnesses for what is a trivial matter when there are concerns of far more pressing importance. The response to this ‘offence’ is totally disproportionate to the damage caused and I would have thought that the meanest intelligence could have understood that.
JC: Edited. Ben, please remember our injunction against personal abuse of other commentators.
JC: Edited. Ben, please remember our injunction against personal abuse of other commentators.
Your rebuke is justified and my apologies.
It did NOT get Winston into Parliament. Those of us who had been watching the polls carefully (and for over a year), knew he was already there.
It’s a wonder New Zealand’s green fields aren’t completely barren, the media have plucked so many straws from it.
“However, in politics it is all about how you address mistakes when they (inevitably) happen.”
As one famous politician once said:
“Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.”
“And regulars on this blog can’t figure out why the majority of Kiwis like John Key?!’
And to quote the same famous politician:
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
The result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister. He is no doubt an affable chap in private. He is certainly the best front man for National. As long term front man for the country, well thats as clear as mud.
I fear by your release of this recording you may have damaged your brand. Yes the content is harmless and has been ridiculously over hyped, but it is still subject to police investigation. Your mana has been established as independent, if left leaning, commentators. To me this is very ‘tabloid’, the very style of journalism you quite rightly decry.This release is too whaleoil and I don’t see the morality, or at least, the upside in joining this circus which is a short step from phone hacking.
I’ve held back on having a gloat at your expense for a while, Kat. Figured you have a valid passion, and aren’t really a bitter person. I’m prepared to revise that opinion, based on your lastest post.
I was waiting with anxious anticipation all through 2011 for “Roll on November 26″. How did it go?
“The result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister”.
Then, prat tell, what other possible measure could a person logically employ?!
Remind me who won, and who, according to opinion polls is the most popular choice for PM.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Still holding the electorate in contempt, are we? As long as Labour imitates your setting, you will be waiting a lot longer then, “Roll on 2014″.
%47.31 voted for National…Even including Act the percentage is %48.38.
I will apply the logic asserted in your post.
What that shows is that %47.31 (or hell %48.38) of Kiwis voted for and therefore ‘like’ John Key. A majority therefore do not like John Key (%51.62) and prefer somebody else.
That combined with a voter turn out of only %74.21 means that out of %100 of the population only %35.1 of Kiwis voted for John Key and %64.9 didn’t.
That does not mean that he is not the most liked, he certainly is the most popular. However, the majority of New Zealanders do not like him, or are indifferent.
That was a pretty arrogant and condescending reply you made.
November 26 was not a push over for National. Look at the numbers, they only just scraped in. Labour did not suffer as much as National did in 2002. The left block is there, albeit spread out somewhat.
Gloat all you like. The fact you take credence in opinion polls reinforces my point regarding the floating middle class voters. And you are right, I do hold them in contempt. They are a small but potent force that both National and Labour have compromised themselves continually trying to win over. And to the detriment of the country at large.
Labour can position itself to be government without having to pander to these ‘floaters’ and thats the challenge right now.
So Kimbo, ‘Roll on 2014′.
Ben: “Slightly off topic it must be galling for Mr Dotcom to know that had he been as serial child molester he would now be on bail. The lesson is that you offend the Prime Minister and/or the USA at your peril.”
Reporters sans Frontieres has published its latest Media Freedom index, and NZ has slumped 5 places for 2011.
I note that while dismissing both opinions polls (“The fact you take credence in opinion polls reinforces my point regarding the floating middle class voters”)
…and the 2008 and 2011 election result (“The result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister”)
as a means of deciding whether whether Key is the preferred choice for PM for the majority of Kiwis,
…and despite raising the matter with me in your post at January 27th, 2012 at 13:01 when I implied that they were,
…you still haven’t answered the question…
what other possible measure could a person logically employ?!
You called me out on the matter. How about you answer it?
Or are those accusations that Key is evasive and slippery really just you projecting your own character flaws?
Either way, I think you confuse your own personal opinion with what the majority are thinking. Maybe more projecting.
Don’t believe me?
Let me remind you of what you posted on this blogsite on 25 November 2011, the day before your long anticipated “Roll on 2011″ showdown – which turned out to be Labour’s worst result since 1928: -
“I have been voting since 1972 and haven’t been so emotionally charged, as now, about the outcome of an election since 1984…I sense the outcome could go either way”.
Hmmm. Not a very astute judgement. Although, to give credit where it is due, your comment above re the fragmenting but essentially enduring nature of the left-voting-bloc is reasonable. The 2014 election is an eternity away.
However, maybe what happens in Kat-land is not that representative of the NZ public. Which is fair enough. It’s not a crime to be out-of-step with the majority, Kat. Good on you.
Which is also why, when you add your self-confessed contempt for a considerable portion of the electorate (who are more sizable than you attribute – how else do they end up determining the outcome of elections?!?), you are not really the “go-to” option to inform us on what the majority of Kiwis are thinking about John Key.
But I still wait in anxious anticipation, as I was at the time of your prophetic utterances preceding November 26, 2011, as to what is your criteria for deciding who the majority of Kiwis prefer for PM. OK, it ain’t the measurements the rest of us are familiar with: election results, and who gets sworn in by the Governor-General, and we can scratch opinion polls.
Give us guidance, Kat! What means are we meant to use? You must know, because you picked me up on the matter!
…what you forget, Sam, is the votes for the Maori Party and United-Future, which combined totalled another 2%, and which were also essentially and pragmatically an endorsement of Key – because National was the only likely major coalition partner they would realistically have entered into government with. Now you are over 50% – and remember, National’s vote of 47.31% would be remarkable under FPP. Under MMP it is was a landslide – even if, due to the nature of MMP it meant a government with a slim majority in the House was formed. Which is pretty much how the system is meant to work…
But seeing as you accuse me of arrogance and condescension, I’ll defer, and allow you to answer the question that will immediately deflate my claim: If Key isn’t the most popular/preferred choice amongst the majority of Kiwis, who is, Sam?
Labour, under Goff scored 27%. OK, you may want to chuck in another 10% for the Green (but don’t they prefer Norman and Turia?!), add 1% for Mana (even though Goff refused to work with them), and 6% for NZ First.
No – that won’t work – NZ First supporters prefer Winston as PM. Plus, in practical terms, NZ First policy is to let the party with the most votes try and form a government (which Key could do with the numbers delivered), with them possibly sitting on the cross benches. Therefore, that is in effect a practical endorsement for Key as PM.
So that is Goff stick on 38%. And let’s be honest about this – there were probably members of Goff’s own caucus who, to their shame, didn’t back him as their preferred PM!
So, it’s over to you Sam – if it ain’t Key, who is it?!
And I also humbly await some statistics or other reliable facts to support your assertion, “the majority of New Zealanders do not like him, or are indifferent”.
Or do the rules of Kat-land (presumptuously confusing and projecting personal opinion onto the electorate and and wider populace) also apply in the Republic of Sam? And you have the cheek to call my post “arrogant and condescending”.
@ Kat & Sam
…and just to put some perspective on it, like most people, including people bitterly opposed to her, I wouldn’t have a problem with the statement, “Helen Clark was the preferred and most popular choice for PM for the majority of Kiwis from 199-2006″.
So why do you have a problem the same claim being made about Key since at least 2008? It doesn’t mean you can’t loathe the guy, or his politics. It’s a free country!
@ Kat & Sam
…unless, of course, in standard left wing radical fashion you are, through your posts
a. objecting to the notion that democracy is really democracy unless it delivers the left-wing option. The sort of thing that saw the ghastly East Germans describe themselves as a “Democratic Republic”. OK, so your ideology automatically dictates Key is a usurper…
b. You are “faking it until you make it”, i.e., you are adopting and propagating the narrative Key’s premiership is not really legitimate, thereby implying he has no mandate to govern, in the hope the idea will take root and spread in the wider populace. Unlikely, but hey – it’s your time, and your life.
Good for you, Kat and Sam. Far be it from me to disabuse you of your political and psychological construct – other than to suggest that your contempt for the decision of the electorate, operating under the rules that we do, is reciprocated by most Kiwis…
Tune in next week, for another episode of “Deconstruct your radical leftie”…
You misunderstand, I was simply stating that John Key was not preferred by the MAJORITY of New Zealanders. The evidence for my assertion is in the election statistics..remember out of 100% not the roughly 70% who voted.
I would not for a minute suggest that he is not the most popular…of that there is no doubt…..That he is rightly leading the government…that too, no doubt.. Majority rule and Key is the man of the hour. My point was merely that those facts do not make him majority loved..
As to your other comments, you and I will never agree, You are quite right to spot me as a lefty, I am… I believe in an emphasis on equality of opportunity, and I believe in free health care, pensions and social welfare. Can they be done better? Yes… Should they be done away with? No.
My issue is that increasingly we have stopped having the debate. On both sides people make assertions with no factual basis. A good example is a focus on dole bludgers as being extremely costly when in fact pensions are a far more significant component of govt spending. If you intellectually believe in a right wing approach I can have no quarrel. If you parrot and rely on bare assertion then I truly hold you in contempt.
I think economic deregulation and the lowering of taxes has led to an increase in inequality and the skyrocketing of public debt… You may well disagree, believing instead that the policies of the left have meant inefficiency, an effective welfare state based on hand outs and the erosion of public responsibility. We will never agree but that doesn’t make either of us fools.
My issue with Key, is not to debate the legitimacy of his premiership… it is legitimate… I disagree with his approach, I don’t like his politics, I don’t think he is an honest man and I don’t like his policies. However that is the point of being in opposition, to question and debate. It is the very essence of democracy.
I took issue with the way you responded to a post.. Factually, JK is not beloved of the Majority of New Zealanders, he is however the most popular. The two are not the same.
The point is, we can disagree politically, but the debate should be had. It does not make either of us idiots. Also, I am not a radical lefty (I am a corporate lawyer (which actually makes me a hypocrite)) I am just a lefty. No radicalism about it. I am a lefty the same way you are a right winger. Not radical..but willing to argue my corner.
Appreciate the response.
Fair point about the proportion of the electorate that turned out to vote.
However, just because others didn’t bother, doesn’t mean they don’t still support Key. Why? Because of the consistent result of the other means of determining public opinion – the opinion polls. Therefore, I’ll pass on your advice, “John Key was not preferred by the MAJORITY of New Zealanders” until you or Kat supply another reliable means of determining the answer.
Don’t know where you came up with the words, “loved”, and “beloved”. I used the terms, “like”, “popular”, and “preferred”.
“Loved” is not usually something that coalesces around National leaders. Labour leaders like Savage, Kirk, Lange (for a time), and Clark (in the Labour community at least) – yes. Muldoon was greatly respected by his supporters – “Rob’s Mob”, many of whom were traditional Labour voters who crossed over (making Muldoon an economic centrist), and who still endure in the cult of personality that is “Winston First”. But not loved.
Don’t mind debating the issues you suggest. Yes, we disagree, especially on Key. I think he is an honest man. I think that, in line with the need that left supporters (generally) have to find a leader they love, they also need someone to hate, or demonise. They are more tribal in their support – although a wander on over to “Whale Oil” will confirm there some folks on the right who turn politics into the soap opera of Pro Wrestling goodies and baddies!
But most Kiwis want to avoid that sort of disagreement, so they steer clear of passion in politics. Which is why the left wing is usually in opposition – they and their supporters have a really bad antenna for what the public wants, and instead they project on to it – and are surprised when they don’t win. And when they don’t, that’s when the plot theories come out…
Back to the point of my initial post, “And regulars on this blog can’t figure out why the majority of Kiwis like John Key?!”. I’m very happy to ignore Key the man, and debate the policies. Go for it.
However, as Key himself, and his seemingly inexplicable popularity/preferredness/likeability (choose whatever descriptor you like!) with the majority/proportion who vote/determine election outcomes/deliver mandates (again, choose your descriptor!) is a cause of regular confusion, chagrin, and comment on this blog, usually with the implication/explanation that the electorate is misinformed/stupid/deceived (cue: economic plot theories that shape left-wing perception and analysis), I thought it would be worthwhile to give an example to show Kiwis are not necessarily that dumb.
The reason Kiwis like Key (and I’m using the pragmatic definition I’ve outlined in this post) is because he appears unruffled under pressure, so much so that when he is the victim of dishonesty (releasing of the recording in defiance of a court order), and an abuse of his rights (privacy), he doesn’t spit the dummy. Instead, he shrugs his shoulders, and gets on with the job. Which is a very good quality to have in a PM, and it advertises well in a sound-bite medium. It actually contrasts well with her predecessor, who, despite her many magnificent personal and political qualities, gave the impression (as per the examples I gave) she took the cut and thrust of politics a little too personally.
I realise some of Key’s more feral and virulent critics will project “uncaring, psychopathic” tendencies onto that response. Good luck to them if they do. Feel free to ignore my attempt to explain the reason why he wins election.
Don’t mind you taking issue with the way I responded to a post. However, I’m still bemused where you read in that I said people, “love” Key. However, if Kat is going to run the regular play-book, which holds the decision of the electorate in contempt (as her initial post implied, and as she subsequently confirmed), then she is going to get short shrift from me – especially when she takes issue with what most would consider the legitimate means of deciding who is the preferred PM, but provide no alternative. You may disagree with the tenor of my response to Kat. Fair enough.
But happy to debate the economic and other issues with you anytime. Irrespective of your politics, you are a gentleman, and I regret, given the context, I mistook you for something else.
Appreciate the response and your reasoning.
Well done Kimbo. More words then I would have used but I share your wonderment at the difficulty visitors to this site have in seeing why anyone would support Key and in responding to that support without indicating contempt.
I well remember in the late eighties when the Labour government was giving us the medicine they thought we needed, a debate around the principle that “the right thing” must ultimately be what people vote for irrespective of whether objectively it appears as such. In other words if the voters reject austerity even if it is empirically indicated, then that is the right thing because the democratic process confers the legitimacy.
I don’t share that view. However, I can understand why one would hold it. Yet the Left, often the purveyor of this idea, seems now to have completely rejected it in its dislike of JK.
@ Old Tony
“More words then I would have used”
Yes – sorry. Brevity is not my stromg suit! But hopefully I’m a bit mor coherent than phillip ure…!
I did say the election could go either way and that was in response to ‘opinion polls’ at the time putting National on 55% and romping in with a history making majority under MMP. That was not the outcome. It wouldn’t have taken more than a couple of percent going the other way in a few electorates and the result could have been a hung parliament.
The chances of Labour turfing out National after only one term was nigh on impossible. But Labour although down in the vote can take heart from the overall result and the only way is up from here. However Labour does need to work on its message and the way it is delivered. Just going out to collect votes won’t cut it. Neither will trying to win over those ‘swinging middle class floaters’ that belong to National.
If I made a mistake in bringing you to task on your earlier post Kimbo it was to bring on your usual ranting word-game put downs. I can now however fully appreciate why you are a Key supporter. And good on you, Kimbo, he will need it soon enough.
Frankly the idea that this media debacle allowed Winston Peters back in is crap.
Whatever conspired (double entendre intended)to bring Winnie back had already happened before the tea stormy cup nonsense.
The idea that a “happening” like the tea cup bullshit brought Peters back into parliament is media wanking.
..and still no answer to the question, your initial post took me to task on:
If “the result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister.”
But if quoting you, and asking you to clarify the meaning of your post is “ranting word-game put downs”, then I withdraw the question.
Far be it from me to upset your well-entrenched, some would argue unchallengeable views with facts, alternatives, or a simple self-examination of your prejudices.
National is in a minority situation. Less than half of all that voted, voted for National/Key.
I said “The result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister.
Think about it Kimbo. Maths 101. And I didn’t even mentioned the million that didn’t vote. Or are you going to tell me the majority of them would be non-voting National supporters!
So I will repeat, just because National is the govt and Key is PM that does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister. The same would have applied if The left bloc had scraped in and been able to form a govt with Phil Goff as PM. Goff would have not necessarily been liked by the ‘majority of Kiwis’ either.
All pretty straight forward I would have thought.
…so that applied to Helen Clark in 1999-2006, and pterry much every PM there has ever been in NZ? Because none has ever captured over 50% of the popular vote under either FPP, or MMP, let alone the support of the population too young to vote, or who choose not to?
So if Key/no previous PM in NZ has never been supported by the “majority”, what term should I use in future to avoid your pedantic ire? “Preferred”? “Popular?” “Mandated”? You are so good at Maths 101, perhaps you would care to enlighten us on the English 101 equivalent?
Good to see the penny has finally dropped and your word count is whittling down to reflect that. The reality of my comment that the result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister, is just that, reality.
I will leave the ‘pedantic ire’ to your good self. I called you up on your statement that the ‘majority of kiwis like John Key. You now in your last post have stated that “none has ever captured over 50% of the popular vote under either FPP, or MMP”. So as I have said before, in plain English, probably 101, that the result of the election does not necessarily mean the ‘majority of Kiwis’ like John Key as Prime Minister, and it seems you agree after all.
All the best Kimbo, time to call it quits. I think BE will flick the switch if this exchange continues.
Fair enough Kat. And to show I hold no hard feelings I’ll even let you enjoy the satisfaction of the last wor…oops!!
Kimbo: “Because none has ever captured over 50% of the popular vote under either FPP or MMP…”
1890 Liberal 56%
1931 National Coalition 55%
1938 Labour 56%
1946 Labour 51%
1949 National 52%
1951 National 54%
The Liberals probably also won absolute majorities of the vote between 1893-1908, but the existence of an array of unofficial Liberal candidates obscures things a little.
Thanks, markus – I stand corrected. I’ll have to be a bit more exact when I resort to imprecise rhetorical phrases such as “majority” (when I mean “a clear cut popular mandate”), and “none has ever captured” (when I should have said “hardly ever in 50 elections, and not in the last 60 years”). However, I always thought that even in years when there was a vastly one-sided and significant election (i.e., 1935, 1938, 1951) the winners just failed to get 50%.
The 1890 Liberals were elected without women voting. Ironic, that their percentage dropped when they actually got the chance to introduce their reforms. But thanks for the clarification on unofficial candidates.
I’ll dispute the 1931 example – as evidenced by the mention of “coalition” – NZ politics was a three way-race in those days, with Labour rising from the early 1920s, and United and Reform didn’t amalgamate to form National until 1936.
As a result you more or less have a two-way race until Social Credit came along in 1954. Even then, was it Vern Cracknell in 1966, and then Bruce Beetham in 1978 before they got any seats. Basically 25 years of people not having their votes translate into any representation under FPP. I also remember reading the book, “Right Out” that BE edited on the 1972 election, and that was the year Values (precursors of the Greens) first began to split the vote.
Fascinating – the Labour government of 1946 was getting a bit stale (although Fraser was a good PM) and people were tiring of the post-war controls – yet they still captured over 50%.
And 1951 was obviously a referendum on whether Jock Barnes had the right to bring down the government!
Merv, Kimbo, et al…
Funny how folks are eager to defend the privacy of polis in certain matters… but here’s where it kinda falls down. (If I may post a link to a piece I write about privacy for some but not others.)
Lyn Duthie January 27th, 2012 at 09:29
“Ben I don’t think the police are investigating the drivel on the tape but the fact that a member of the media taped a conversation without permission and then onsold it to a newspaper.”
I may’ve missed something. the tape was “sold”?
WAKE UP January 27th, 2012 at 12:38
“It did NOT get Winston into Parliament…”
It certainly didn’t hurt his chances. I think it certainly may have given Peters a good blast of oxygen. Good on him – if Key was silly enough to let it happen. (And I say that as a staunch critic of NZ First.)
@ Frank Macskasy
“It certainly didn’t hurt his chances. I think it certainly may have given Peters a good blast of oxygen. Good on him – if Key was silly enough to let it happen. (And I say that as a staunch critic of NZ First.)”.
Fair point. Also, Winston was scoffed at when he was saying the polls are misleading the the way they are reported, because they do not include the “undecided” portion. They sure firm up nearer election date, when arguably the more-impressionable are swayed by “events”, and due to MMP, every vote counts – no matter how “unconsidered”!
And you are maybe right that Key was silly enough to let it happen. If you cannot completely control the space, then you probably have to assume “there is no such thing as a dead microphone”.
Also, I’ve always had my suspicions that the leaks of the “Hollow Men: Don Brash emails came, as Hager (an albeit unreliable source in my opinion) has implied from within the National Party. And if you follow the dictates of conspiracy theory, and ask the question, “Who stood to gain?”…
Kimbo: “I’ll dispute the 1931 example”
United and Reform did, in fact, form an official Coalition (albeit remaining 2 distinct parties) to contest the 1931 Election – although this led to a whole array of Independent United and Reform candidates standing throughout the Country, some of whom actually won their seat.
“…with Labour rising from the early 1920s”
Yeah, although they were essentially rising from 1908 and their big breakthrough came in 1919 (throughout the Country) and then again in 1922 (specifically in the cities). Thereafter, they stagnated until 1931.
” I also remember reading the book ‘Right Out’…”
Which I myself did just 3 years ago – for some ongoing research that will hopefully eventually reach fruition. Also read some of the early (1960s) Austin Mitchell analyses.
“…the Labour government of 1946 was getting a bit stale…yet they still captured over 50%”
They would have in 1943 as well but John A Lee’s Democratic Soldier Labour Party split the Left vote somewhat. (my grandmother was a good friend of Walter Nash – who was very much Lee’s bete noire – but she was also a firm supporter of Lee and voted for him to remain in the Party at the conference that expelled him).
“And 1951 was obviously a referendum on whether Jock Barnes had the right to bring down the government.”
Not sure I’d go that far. Huge swing to non-voting in 1951. Both major parties received fewer votes than in 1949. My mother’s first vote that election. A firm supporter of the wharfies, she was so unhappy with the ‘sitting on the fence’ neutrality of her mother’s mate (new Labour leader, Nash) that she voted for the Communist candidate as a protest. Only time she’s ever voted other than Labour.