Putting aside John Key tossing it in to become a Hare Krishna, to cause an upset Labour must target the middle floating voters and the non-voting lower-income sector. With the floating voters, a devastating rout over John Key in the televised leaders' debate would make a difference. That's unlikely; indeed the opposite is more probable.
Still, remember 2002 after Peter Dunne impressed in the leaders' debate and ended up with nine MPs -- most, one suspects, hitherto unknown to him. But the polls suggest National's support is firmly intact and the votes up for grabs are those Labour's lost. If Cunliffe tries to buy these with targeted largesse expenditure, as he's doing, then he could lose more as increasingly voters appreciate it's their money politicians are offering to spend. This irresponsibility simply consolidates National's marketed image of being financially prudent. In targeting the elderly with doctor visits paid by taxpayers, Cunliffe invades Winston's support base, yet he cannot form a government without New Zealand First reaching 5 per cent and throwing its support behind Labour.
Using Matt McCarten as the master tactician plainly hasn't worked. Matt's imagery is vintage 1935, which may be a contributing factor in the disastrous polls. His purported skill is getting out the vote with the non-voting low-income sector, although there's no evidence of significant past general election successes.
Reverting to sporting parallels and this election, during Muhammad Ali's long career, wherever he fought, an accompanying entourage of flashy black men with their dazzling mistresses were there. Bedecked in appallingly bad-taste, massive chunky gold necklaces and rings (that's the men; the women were elegant), they arrived at the fight destination a week early. They weren't boxing aficionados or Ali fans but instead professional gamblers who were living the high-life through exploiting a standard human foible relevant to this election. That is to rationalise an outcome aligned to one's wishes, despite the overwhelming evidence against it. Thus, when Ali fought an obviously inferior opponent with absolutely no chance, they'd offer odds so extreme the opponent's died-in-the-wool fan base would succumb to temptation and be in it. It was like offering a million to one against night following day. Do that and silly buggers would be in it, just as with the Ali betting cottage industry.
Similar wishful thinking is occurring with Labour supporters despite the election outcome appearing a foregone conclusion. The pundits are obliged to write about it, thus persist with endless rationalisations as to why, despite the polls but through minor party machinations, there could be a Labour government. Meanwhile, Labour's increasingly despairing faithful, the equivalent of those long-odds fans of Ali's opponents, fill talk-back and the internet with their delusions. Ali did eventually lose to Leon Spinks in a huge upset but it cost those gamblers nothing, for Spinks had no devoted fan base to be seduced by what would have been extraordinarily long odds. That result was analogous to Colin Craig becoming Prime Minister. If the TAB was offering wagers on the election they'd probably be offering about five to one against a Labour victory, and as with Ali's opponents' deluded fans, would find plenty of takers.
The prohibition on them offering bets on elections or anything other than sport is regretful. What a pleasure if one could bang a tenner on whether Winston will get up again, or on Labour or the Conservatives' percentage vote, or who will win the Napier seat, and endless other contingencies. It would certainly add a fun dimension to a contest now tiresome given its obvious outcome.
Debate on this article is now closed.
