Shearer MP for Mt Albert: 9,187 Majority 63% [UPDATED]
Just caught Melissa Lee's concession statement and it's a very tough night for her. The result is shocking and she was suitably shocked. Her self-confidence will never be as low as tonight - we'll have to see over the course of the rest of the term whether there is political redemption for her - whether she shows a learning curve or not or whether she's demoted down the rankings and into list oblivion come 2011. She gave a great show of how to do electorate oblivion with her 17.1% implosion.
----
Huge margin for David Shearer. He brings some international credentials back to Labour. I wonder what use Phil Goff would put his mate to in terms of portfolios?And National thrashed. Thrashed. Barely a thousand votes clear of the Greens. Melissa Lee is punished. John Key's leadership to some extent on this has been given a slap. Goff's leadership vindicated.
FINAL RESULT: MT ALBERT
Shearer wins: 9,187 Majority
SHEARER, David LAB 12,613 (63.1%)
LEE, Melissa NAT 3,426 (17.1%)
NORMAN, Russel GP 2,418 (12.1%)
BOSCAWEN, John ACT 943 (4.7%)
BOYCE, Ben B&B 151 ≤1%
DYER, Simonne KIWI 85
GREEN, Dakta ALCP 85
TURNER, Judy UFNZ 82
PISTORIUS, Julian LIB 35
BAGNALL, Jim IND 22
BAKER, Ari IND 15
VAN DEN HEUVEL, Anthony Joseph James HR 14
FRANCE, Malcolm PBP 13
WOOD, Jackson James IND 9
KANE, Rusty PCP 5
Candidate Informals 76
TOTAL 19,992
----
Compared with the last general election result in the electorate:
Helen's majority was 10,351 - so Shearer did not quite get there in raw numbers, but because his proportion of the vote is more he will be absolutely chuffed. She was the PM for nine long years with near 100% name recognition so he's done very well.34,963 voted in 2008. Under 20,000 less than a year later on quite a fine day - that's shockingly poor turnout. Is it even more than 50%?
This election compared with 2008:
LAB: Shearer 63.1% | Clark 59.29%
NAT: Lee 17.1% | Musuku 28.84%
GRN: Norman 12.1% | Carapiet 5.94%
ACT: Boscawen 4.7% | McCabe 4.09%
Ravi Musuku was written off and under the pressure of a by-election he would have shed votes in buckets, but would he have collapsed to less than 20% of the vote! FFS - that is a total thrashing. 17.1% for the ruling National party is what the international summary will read. How much of this will backwash to the PM. Where is he to be seen? Is he consoling the shredded candidate or is she just the next MP he will "wash my hands of". His management and National's strategy over the über city should be worrying team blue.
Russel Norman has raised his profile, esp. in Auckland and has run National fairly close for second spot - he should be proud of that result and I imagine the Greens will be in good spirits - more than doubling their vote.
As for Act, John will be a bit dismayed with that result I suspect. They would probably had thought that with his committed campaigning and visibility combining with the Tory candidate melting down that they could pick it up to 6 or 7 percent. So less than 5% will be disappointing.
----
The Christians and the stoners tied for sixth in the final result - the irrelevant, (essentially Wellington-based) United Future Party is seventh - the unsexy centre.--
Other coverage: They are quite right to describe Shearer's win in those terms. It is a thumping majority and a real dicking to National and should be taken as a slap from the public.
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 8:38 pm
19 comments
19 Comments:
This is nothing to do with the Labour leadership or the National leadership, if the Labour candidate was a cat called Ed, Labour would still have got half the votes.
Given that , tis is more about the IQ Of the Mt Albert voting public.
And that attitude shows why the Nets lost so badly Dave
Dave....oh so bitter, I think as a national voter seeing the performance of your PM in the past few weeks I would be questioning your own IQ for voting him in!!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3616274342_faa18b5ce0_o.gif
"John Key's leadership to some extent on this has been given a slap."
Um no, National are STILL leading by a huge majority over Labour in the national polls. Wishful thing really.
"Russel Norman has raised his profile, esp. in Auckland and has run National fairly close for second spot - he should be proud of that result and I imagine the Greens will be in good spirits"
Rather charitable really. Can't even beat nationals dismal result.
"It is a thumping majority and a real dicking to National and should be taken as a slap from the public."
If it wasn't Clark's safe Labour seat I'd believe you. More indicative of the country's mood was National's ascendence in Aucland's previously safe working class electorates.
Labour shouldn't take any heart from the result except for Goff who is safe for now.
Um no, National are STILL leading by a huge majority over Labour in the national polls. Wishful thing really.
Um no, I will be giving a blow by blow report on the awful political mismanagment National committed with their candidate, wasn't it anonymous trolls like you anonymous troll who was crowing Melissa Lee would be better over Ravi? The tunnel abortion, her comments on roading crime prevention, admitting she would lose and then her mimimum wage gaffe, to have an anonymous troll STILL crowing after such a beating explains why you post anonymously. National screwed this up, in 9 months they have developed the arrogance it took Labour 9 years to build. This by-election matters regardless of how the anonymous right wing trolls try to spin it after the fact.
Rather charitable really. Can't even beat nationals dismal result.
The good people of Mt Albert didn't throw Russell their vote because the National candidate was so bad, better to have Shearer in for good than risk a vote split and get that awful Melissa Lee.
If it wasn't Clark's safe Labour seat I'd believe you. More indicative of the country's mood was National's ascendence in Aucland's previously safe working class electorates.
Bullshit, National rode the talkback generated nanny state myth but the hysteria National and their proxies in the media generated over power saving lightbulbs and water saving showerheads pales into insignificance in voters minds when we are facing 10% unemployment in an employment environment created by National and ACT which gives bosses the right to sack. This electoral defeat in Mt Albert is the first shot towards National being a one term government.
Labour shouldn't take any heart from the result except for Goff who is safe for now.
Oh no you don't anonymous right wing troll, National should be veryu concernbed at how poorly they managed this by-election and how the cocked up a way to destroy Goff and Labour's 2011 chances. The fact you are blind to that sums up the arrogance National displayed in this by-election and will be the reason National don't win in 2011.
"The fact you are blind to that sums up the arrogance National displayed in this by-election and will be the reason National don't win in 2011."
Historically National has always served two terms so you seem to be quite blind to history Bomber.
"Bullshit, National rode the talkback generated nanny state myth"
God, not the talk back myth AGAIN. Neither I nor many other National voters listen to talkback, more like national radio.
"STILL crowing after such a beating explains why you post anonymously. National screwed this up, in 9 months they have developed the arrogance it took Labour 9 years to build."
So what are those poll numbers Bomber. No need to argue the point when you can just post here to show how Labour is overwhelmingly popular.
PS you haven't rebutted my point regarding how working class electorate swung to National?
Bomber
Whilst I agree that National and Lee have run a poor campaign, I think you are being foolish to try and extrapolate this out to a national level.
Mt Albert is a Labour seat. Has been for a long time, and will continue to be. That, coupled with
a decision to put a motorway through the electorate, really meant that Shearer was always going to win the seat.
National are still very popular. Recent polls show them well above 50% and I dont think this changes anything. Electorates have distinct profiles - if there was a by-election in Pakuranga National would win - it wouldn't be symbolic of anything more than the electorates make up.
" This electoral defeat in Mt Albert is the first shot towards National being a one term government."
They will win in 2011. New Zealand seldom does one term governments, and Key being one of the more popular prime ministers, will ensure victory.
Do National need to look at their political management? Yes. Does this defeat cast doubt over their ability to win in 2011? No I think they will win in 2011, I think it will take Labour more than 3 years to re-invent themselves. And without NZ First, and the Greens having a ceiling of 7%, its a hell of a hill to climb.
i'd say that if key continues his halfwit performance and continues to talk like he left school at 4 years of age the nats will be a one term wonder.....i suspect there will be alot of interest as to what they propose for there second term...selling everything except ya undies....sounds like a tory beating to me!
But hey....G.W Bush won a second term and i will NEVER Understand that one...so Key might do a Bush also.
Scott - I'm posting about the Mt Albert election being the symbolic victory Labour needed to make this Government a one term Government in full tomorrow, so I'll hold my powder till then, but to answer your questions
Bomber
Whilst I agree that National and Lee have run a poor campaign, I think you are being foolish to try and extrapolate this out to a national level.
I'm saying Labour could use this as the symbolic turn around. For the last 9 months they've had to naval gaze about why they lost the election and look suitably chastized by an election not fought on policy difference, but fought on a none defined 'change' after Labour had been in power for 3 terms. This win (after much National crowing they could take it because their approval ratings were sky high) is the circuit breaker for Labour, because if Labour had lost it would've been Goff's leadership. Winning it convincingly is the symbolic victory Labour needed.
Mt Albert is a Labour seat. Has been for a long time, and will continue to be. That, coupled with
a decision to put a motorway through the electorate, really meant that Shearer was always going to win the seat.
That ignores National's own role in this though. The decision to kneecap the local boy Ravi for the supposed media savvy Lee was National's, the mistake to inform the candidate of their motorway option was National's, the plan to inject crime prevention through motorways was the Candidate that National chose, her melt down on TV3, her giving up on Radio NZ and her minimum wage gaffe were all made when National knew she needed help and yet they didn't help (Dr Johnathan Coleman is not helping). All of these wounds were self inflicted, to shrug and say it was Helen's seat and a motorway was going through there so National could never have won so don't use this to see a wider picture denies the utter incompetance of National. I understand the desire to rally around your party for public signs of support, but privately you must be deeply concerned that so many mistakes were made, National's by-election attempt made them look inept and stupid and inept stupid party's don't win elections.
National are still very popular. Recent polls show them well above 50% and I dont think this changes anything.
And it was that high approval rating that lent so much arrogance to this campaign.
Electorates have distinct profiles - if there was a by-election in Pakuranga National would win - it wouldn't be symbolic of anything more than the electorates make up.
Normally yes but this was different, this was either the complete route of Labour or it was them turning it back, Mt Albert had a lot of symbolism going for it, that's what made it different.
They will win in 2011. New Zealand seldom does one term governments, and Key being one of the more popular prime ministers, will ensure victory.
As the economy becomes a depression and 10% unemployment starts to bite the affection for this Government is going to burn up pretty quickly. People voted for a none defined change, when they see the reality of what National will propose it will be a very different outcome, you also forget that National intend to privatize in the next term, and NZers will have a very clear decision in lean times whether they want their assetts sold off and public services decreased. I think believing a National victory is a certainty is a massive call.
Do National need to look at their political management? Yes. Does this defeat cast doubt over their ability to win in 2011?
They rode 'change' to win 2008, when they were actually put under the gun to perform beyond 'change' they self inflicted themselves to a bloody wreck. Past 'change' what the hell does National stand for? This by-election and its mismangament is a symptom of a much bigger problem for National.
No I think they will win in 2011,
I think the economy tanking and National's cure for the economy tanking will be deeply unpopular once the change paint job peels off.
I think it will take Labour more than 3 years to re-invent themselves. And without NZ First, and the Greens having a ceiling of 7%, its a hell of a hill to climb.
Which comes back to my point in my 'Challenge to the left' post which I'll be adding to this week about making the tent bigger to get a mandate.
I await your post tomorrow with interest and may add further to my thoughts tomorrow. My point is this - significant it is, game changing it is not.
"Normally yes but this was different, this was either the complete route of Labour or it was them turning it back, Mt Albert had a lot of symbolism going for it, that's what made it different."
Absolute rubbish bomber and you know it. Even we National supporters know if was pretty much going to stay Labour. What was much more interesting was the Green campaign which was highly disappointing to say the least. As the leader Russel had the opportunity to make a huge impact and he failed.
I still don't understand how you can on one hand admit that National has a huge lead in the polls yet this result in a safe labour seat is a slap in their face. More likely its vindication that Labour is not walking corpse.
Absolute rubbish bomber and you know it. Even we National supporters know if was pretty much going to stay Labour.
Maybe it was just the on-line right wing National Party then because whaleoil and Kiwiblogh certainly crowed their success in bringing the Tizard effect into play to give National a shot and they kneecapped Ravi to make sure their candidate whom they thought could win. For a party who as you say always knew deep down they never were going win, your party certainly sacrificed a lot didn't they.
What was much more interesting was the Green campaign which was highly disappointing to say the least. As the leader Russel had the opportunity to make a huge impact and he failed.
He doubled his vote and in the face of a candidate as awful as Melissa Lee, progressive leaning voters couldn't risk supporting green in a first past the post structure. That National were only 1000 votes ahead of the Greens is very humiliating for National.
I still don't understand how you can on one hand admit that National has a huge lead in the polls yet this result in a safe labour seat is a slap in their face.
National has rode a wave of good will by most NZers towards John Key because NZers like John Key, he's a likable guy and NZers tend to give people a go. But that honeymoon will come screaching to a halt as the 'change' electorate start to realize what the change is to. National are a party who is not sure of what it stands for and in the philisophical vacum factions start to swirl and right now there is a very strong privatization faction who are stirring.
More likely its vindication that Labour is not walking corpse.
BINGO - that's exactly what this by-election shows, where a close run election with National would've been enough to destablize Goff's leadership, their mix of arrogance and incompetance has given Labour new life, that's the irony.
"For a party who as you say always knew deep down they never were going win, your party certainly sacrificed a lot didn't they."
Key is probably dealing with the economic recession engulfing NZ for the second time so I don't think by election was a priority.
"That National were only 1000 votes ahead of the Greens is very humiliating for National."
Again safe Labour seat but he should have done better. The only place additional Green votes are going to come from is Labour and Russel should have gone for the jugular. Sad really, he could have shown Labour that the Greens should not be taken for granted.
"National are a party who is not sure of what it stands for"
We're pretty sure believe me. It's Labour which should be confused. Fucking over Maori with the Fore and Seabed Act and then thinking that class solidarity will win them over, Passing the Electoral Finance Act which nearly ever left wing liberal organisation derided as anti-democratic.
"BINGO - that's exactly what this by-election shows"
No, it shows they can win Labour's safest seat. Completely wrong intepretation.
Bomber I need to strongly pick you up on your use of the word Depression. This is not a Depression. It is scaremongering to say it is
A depression is where real GDP drops by over 10%. Between 1926 and 1933 GDP in the US dropped by 33% - and from 1937-1938 GDP dropped by 18% - hence the use of the term Depression.
In the 12 months from April 2008-2009, GDP in the US came back by 2.6%. Still a long way off a Depression. Indeed it may not eclipse the GDP drop oof 4.9% that occured between November 1973 and March 1975.
Gotta be careful with how you label stuff - this isnt a depression.
Scott, I use the word depression because I mean the word depression, this 'recession' has barely begun.
Key is probably dealing with the economic recession engulfing NZ for the second time so I don't think by election was a priority.
No that was Keys excuse for not doing anything with Worth, pretending National had walked away from Mt Albert after haunting everyone with Tizard and kneecapping Ravi is just pretending. National sacrificed a lot for a seat you are suggesting they knew they would lose, they didn't know that, they in fact hoped to bury Goff.
Again safe Labour seat but he should have done better. The only place additional Green votes are going to come from is Labour and Russel should have gone for the jugular. Sad really, he could have shown Labour that the Greens should not be taken for granted.
Again - the humiliation is National's coming in only a 1000 votes ahead after the Greens had doubled their vote. I understand you want to put the boot into Russell, but it's National that barely beat him, the humiliation is theirs not the Greens.
We're pretty sure believe me. It's Labour which should be confused. Fucking over Maori with the Fore and Seabed Act and then thinking that class solidarity will win them over, Passing the Electoral Finance Act which nearly ever left wing liberal organisation derided as anti-democratic.
I am well aware of Labours flaws, I protested at each of them, and their sins cost them the election when Labour Party voters didn't vote in Auckland. But I think you miss my point on National on purpose - National DON'T know what they stand for, they have spent the 3 terms out of office fumbling for an identity and still have no set values or philisophical direction - are they tax cuts (not now) aare they free marketeers (no they are Labour plus)) are they socially conservative (Key voted for the repeal of section 59) they have no clear idea what they are and in this vacum there are factions pulling the party all over the place. Denying the problem that National have got no vision and have no idea what they are standing for suggests there will be tears before bedtime as those factions clash.
No, it shows they can win Labour's safest seat. Completely wrong intepretation.
Anonymous troll I used your words that Labour weren't a walking corpse, your very own words which you now want to take back because they were now the wrong interpretation?
Call it a depression when it becomes a depression. A drop of GDP of 3% is not a depression. In my mind this will be nothing like the 1930s - painful yes, but not a depression. Indeed there are signs that things might start to pick up next year...
Green shoots huh Scott? LOL, they aren't taking into account the effect of the unemplyment numbers and you know it.
Post a Comment
<< Home