The Dim-Post

June 20, 2013

May I, Monsieur, offer my services without running the risk of intruding?

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 8:34 am

Vernon Small reckons that Labour are torn over whether to run Clayton Cosgrove in an upcoming by-election in Christchurch East. Perhaps this graph showing Labour’s party vote in his former electorate of Waimakariri contrasted with Labour’s performance nation-wide will be helpful.

clayton

The chart ranges from 1999, when Clayton Cosgrove first stood for Waimakariri - which was then a safe Labour seat – until last year’s election when Cosgrove lost the electorate vote to Kate Wilkinson.

About these ads

19 Comments »

  1. There were significant boundary changes in 2008 and I presume the earthquake may have effected the seat in 2011 as it did elsewhere in canterbury. I expect you would get similar results in chch east in 2011 where the sitting MP has a good chance of winning the mayoralty

    Comment by mike — June 20, 2013 @ 8:58 am

  2. a better comparison might be his personal electorate vote vs the party electorate vote.

    Comment by Dave Guerin — June 20, 2013 @ 9:09 am

  3. Yeah – do what Dave says instead.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — June 20, 2013 @ 9:20 am

  4. a better comparison might be his personal electorate vote vs the party electorate vote.

    Waimakariri’s LP vote in 1999 was 38.58% against their electoral party result of 38.74%.
    Cosgrove’s candidate vote in ’99 was 38.88%.

    As an electorate candidate, since 2002 he’s consistently out-polled the LP proportion of the national vote by a considerable margin. Though his numbers have dropped off in absolute terms – down from 19k in 2005 to 16k in 2011 – turnout has also declined from a peak of 39.5k in 2005 to 36k last election (though Kate Wilkinson picked up 2.5k over the same period).

    Comment by Gregor W — June 20, 2013 @ 9:27 am

  5. Dave, Graeme. Actually, what matters for Labour is how many party votes a candidate brings in because that, and only, that determines how many seats Labour has. A candidate who wins for themselves but can’t win party votes is useless except for a party where he overhand is a factor, and that ain’t Labour. It’s clear that Clayton is doing a relatively poor job in winning the votes that matter for his party.

    And, Graeme, what the hell? You come to someone else’s blog and demand they do work for you? What kind of basic manners is that? Honestly, don’t be a dick.

    Comment by Dean — June 20, 2013 @ 9:41 am

  6. Graeme has a point, Dean. Cosgrove himself isn’t solely responsible for the level of the Labour Party vote in Waimakariri 2011 – just like Kate Wilkinson certainly wasn’t responsible for the share of the National Party vote.

    Waimakariri, 2011:
    Labour Party 8,431 COSGROVE, Clayton LAB 16,145
    National Party 20,489 WILKINSON, Kate NAT 16,787

    Cosgrove lost by ~600 votes, but the Labour party was trounced by 12k.

    I certainly don’t think he should be parachuted into Chch East, but to say that he’s an electoral failure is somewhat unfair.

    For comparison, here’s 2008, 2005 and 2002 as well:

    2008:
    Labour Party 12,702 COSGROVE, Clayton LAB 16,360
    National Party 18,539 WILKINSON, Kate NAT 15,970

    2005:
    Labour Party 16,484 COSGROVE, Clayton LAB 19,084
    National Party 16,565 WILKINSON, Kate NAT 13,478

    2002:
    Labour Party 14,383 COSGROVE, Clayton LAB 17,571
    National Party 7,593 GORDON, Dan NAT 7,035

    Only in 2002, when National got its worst result ever in a national election, did Labour win the party vote, and in every year Cosgrove has managed to pick up more votes than his party. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty successful campaigner to me, regardless of your personal opinion of the man.

    Comment by Vanilla Eis — June 20, 2013 @ 10:38 am

  7. I think Graeme has, by now, enough mana in the New Zealand “extremely detailed nerdery” blogosphere to suggest something like that.

    Comment by Keir — June 20, 2013 @ 10:38 am

  8. Gah, format fail. *worst result ever* was meant to be in bold, not the rest of it.

    Comment by Vanilla Eis — June 20, 2013 @ 10:39 am

  9. Not helped by Stuff choosing a photo of Clayton posing as a hirsute Mussolini. Almost an abuse the right of men to be ugly

    Comment by Leopold — June 20, 2013 @ 10:40 am

  10. Would:

    Yeah – do what Dave says :-)

    have been better?

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — June 20, 2013 @ 11:31 am

  11. in every year Cosgrove has managed to pick up more votes than his party

    This is true of most National and Labour candidates in most electorates. There are many more options for one’s party vote, and many many more options that may have an effect on the outcome (ignoring that fact that one vote doesn’t make a difference).

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — June 20, 2013 @ 11:33 am

  12. 11 — Except candidates running against Clayton, who consistently underperform their Party vote.

    Comment by Keir — June 20, 2013 @ 11:40 am

  13. James Edmuzik Dann has a very instructive graph of the party vote in Christchurch Central: http://rebuildingchristchurch.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/no-such-thing-as-a-safe-labour-seat/

    Labour and the Alliance used to scoop 70% of the vote. In the last election National got more votes than Labour and the Greens combined. NZ First’s vote is also much higher than it should ever be among sane and rational people presented with a competent opposition party. There’s no way the vote should be taken for granted.

    And if Labour wanted to instantly raise $1.6 million dollars, it could ask that its MPs tithe their salaries. It’s a very reliable source of income for the Greens, and thanks to increases over the last 10 years still leaves MPs adequately compensated for their particularly demanding lives. (There are of course some without demanding lives, but they should be ejected.)

    Comment by George D — June 20, 2013 @ 11:45 am

  14. [Labour]could ask that its MPs tithe their salaries

    An excellent scheme, which would have the additional advantage that those who see being a Labour MP as a good career option with a decent salary might be tempted to move on. Unfortunately, I think those people control the party, so it won’t happen. They’d rather creep to a few dodgy millionaires for some dollars.

    Comment by richdrich — June 20, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

  15. “Cosgrove himself isn’t solely responsible for the level of the Labour Party vote in Waimakariri 2011 ”

    Danyl is a firm believer in the idea that the party vote in any given seat is mostly a reflection of the quality of the local candidate, not of the national campaign.

    Comment by Hugh — June 20, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

  16. The Nats coasted in on a post-earthquake gratitude vote in 2011. I don’t think it had much to do with the quality of anyone’s campaign. There’s not a whole lot of gratitude left in Chch now that some people are facing their third winter kipping in the garage, waiting for EQC to get their shit together. Labour could wheel out a cardboard cutout of a candidate and still win the seat.

    Comment by teararoawalkers — June 20, 2013 @ 8:50 pm

  17. National coasted in on Labour’s ineptitude to connect to both it’s own membership, what is left of it, and the general electorate.

    The Christchurch electoral result will reflect the concerns of Christchurch based Cantabrians. Understandably..

    Whether it is Waimakarere or Christchurch East does not matter. What voters are interested in and ,more importantly care about, determines who votes on election day.

    Whether or not the LP caucus understand this is debatable.

    Comment by peterlepaysan — June 21, 2013 @ 12:06 am

  18. “National coasted in on Labour’s ineptitude to connect to both it’s own membership, what is left of it, and the general electorate.”
    Or perhaps the postponement of the Census, and so keeping 2006 Census based electorates, had a gerrymandering effect on Christchurch.
    How many National voters do you think left NZ between 2008 & 2011 to seek their fortune in foreign lands?

    Comment by Another Jeremy — June 21, 2013 @ 6:37 pm

  19. Or perhaps the postponement of the Census, and so keeping 2006 Census based electorates, had a gerrymandering effect on Christchurch.

    If the census is held in election year, New boundaries are not drawn until the following year. The boundaries drawn from the 2006 census data were going to be used for the 2011 election whether the census occurred in 2011 or not.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — June 22, 2013 @ 4:06 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 336 other followers

%d bloggers like this: