the decision was that of the leadership team
Maybe there are downsides to being tightly tied to the Greens, as well as upsides? And in this case, given the upside simply isn’t that large, the natural tendency of cautious social democrats will be to avoid the risk.
or they could refer to the sort of polling Danyl linked to and realise that the bogeyman aint that big and scary. Caution cost them the last 2 elections so I don't see why anyone with half a brain would posit it as a winning approach in this instance.
oops, wrong Rob
Danyl says Labour's position seems like a big risk given what polls tell us.
my guess is that most Labour voters who are sympathetic to the Greens – and according to the Colmar Brunton poll that’s about 70% of Labour voters – don’t feel the need to switch because ever since the NZPower launch there’s been a kind-of-consensus that a vote for Labour is a vote for a Labour-Greens coalition.
Labour’s announcement that this isn’t the case and that a vote for Labour could also be a vote for a Labour-New Zealand First coalition seems like a big risk. I can see why they took it: they want to win back those votes from National and think its going to be tough to do when they’re in a formal alliance with the Green Party.
But I’d also note that Labour’s high-point during this electoral cycle came after the NZPower Labour-Greens co-announcement back in 2013.
However, voters assess which parties are likely to be in government together when casting their vote. Pre-election agreements or coalitions are one way to signal that. Cups of tea and smoke signals work in some places.
Rob Campbell (now we just need John to chime in) notes that NZ's electoral setup makes pre-election deals less likely than in some other nations.
because National will be able to define the relationship itself
I think that’s part of Gordon Campbell’s thesis too.
Ah, I see I/S has made that link.
I agree with Gordon Campbell's assessment - this is just more of the feckless timidity that has strangled Labour for the past 6 years and is unlikely to result in anything other than a third term for National. Thanks a bunch.
Such an alliance might have galvanised Cunliffe’s campaign, currently dead in the water. The tactical timidity involved is breathtaking. If Labour is concerned that any formal alliance with the Greens would expose it to scare tactics by the centre-right, well…guess what? It is being tarred with the brush already. Whether Labour likes it or not, its proximity on policy issues to the Greens is going to be used against it, night and day, by the centre right. It can’t afford to run scared of its core ideas, and expect the electorate to respect it, much less vote for it.
In the worst case scenario, would a Labour/Greens alliance really have opened up a large centre ground for the likes of Peters and Peter Dunne to populate? Hardly. If Cunliffe cannot back himself to get on the front foot and beat off the likes of Peters and Dunne for the centre ground, he plainly has no hope at all of winning the same centrist voters in any contest with John Key. Would a united Greens/Labour front have polarised the electorate? You bet. On that score, the electorate is way ahead of Labour. Much of it is already polarised, and in opposition to the policies and personalities of the Key government. What it lacks is a leader of that opposition – but yesterday, Cunliffe decided not to turn up to work.
Really thought McCarten could offer better advice.
estimated the half-time score using crowd noise and smoke signals
a graph showing the relative sizes of the two groups
I suggested using a section of a sports stadium crowd photo to show relevant numbers for the bowel screening programme pilot. Real people, just lots.