It is looking increasingly like Labour’s own advisor to the Electoral Commission has worked very hard at shafting Ruth Dyson and Trevor Mallard. So much so he has missed some strange looking boundary adjustments in other areas.
Jadis has performed some very good analysis of the changes over at the lifestyle, travel and arts blog of David Farrar. From the looks of it there are no winners on the left side of politics.
And most of the losers are Labour.
Ruth Dyson, Port Hills â Dyson is the biggest loser in this boundary review. Â Her majority has been reversed with the Nats stronghold of Halswell moving into the seat, and Andertonâs old stomping ground of Sydenham moving into Christchurch Central. Â Dyson will have a real battle to hold this, even with the Nats putting in a new candidate. Â How winnable the seat is very much depends on the strength of the Nat candidate, but a good candidate could take the seat with a 2000 majority. Â Iâd be gutted if I was Dyson as Pete Hodgson (who did the boundaries for Labour) is a good mate of hers. Â Perhaps this is Labourâs new (poor) strategy of retiring MPs.
Trevor Mallard, Hutt South â This is the surprise of the final boundaries. Â Mallard has gained all of the Â Western Hills (good Nat territory) and lost super red areas of Naenae and Rimutaka. Labour should have been able to stop this occurring but appear to have put up no fight. Â Mallard should be furious with his party for failing to keep Hutt South a real red seat. Â Why didnât Hodgson fight hard for Mallard? Â Was it a directive from on high? Â Realistically, Mallard should hold the seat but heâll be working hard for it and never should have been put in this position. I expect Mallardâs majority to be pegged down a few.Â Read more »