But the most critical factor, crucial to victory, is the National-held “marginal seats”, many of which have been traditionally Labour-held seats. Their importance in any election result has been largely ignored. We only need to look to recent state and federal elections in Australia to see how important these seats are in determining the outcome.
Both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott spent what seemed like a disproportionate amount of their time in marginal seats. They knew only too well how important those seats were.
Marginal seats are oftetn pivotal to election victory and that’s where New Zealand’s election next year will be won or lost.
Farrar really rips into Anderton for his supposed stupidity. As they say, read the whole thing.
Far be it from me to defend Jim Anderton. He is a pompous jerk and a thoroughly unlikable fellow. A parasite. He un-principally derives additional Parliamentary benefits from being ‘Leader’ of what is basically a fake political Party.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that someone who has been in Parliament doesn’t understand the basics of our electoral system – especially given that he agitated for the change to PR for years.
I don’t think Farrar has necessarily read the piece with utmost care because Anderton also wrote:
As far as the “party vote” is concerned, the clear evidence is that where a major party is picking up electorate seats from its opponent, it is also increasing its share of the party vote.
The argument – i.e. that constituencies changing hands is symptomatic of a swing in the national mood. Granted, this was one sentence tucked into the middle of the article. Few people have ever hailed Jim Anderton as a great communicator, however.