The politicians have spoken on Ohariu-Belmont

It is clear that one of two people will win Ohariu-Belmont (my electorate) in 2011- Labour’s Charles Chauvel or United Future leader Peter Dunne, just like in 2008. But it always was clear.

While a competent MP, Gareth Hughes from the Greens will not win, and is campaigning for the party vote. Many National Party supporters prefer Peter Dunne over Katrina Shanks, so Shanks has no option but to campaign for the party vote.

So, if you are a Green supporter, you have been advised to vote for Chauvel, if you are a National supporter, Peter Dunne. Katrina Shanks, who is currently 55 on the party list, was so out of touch that she did not even realise a deal was done by National to have their supporters vote for Dunne.

The thing is, Hughes is quite happy to ask his supporters to vote for fellow list MP Chauvel, but Shanks is not so happy that her supporters are being told to vote for Dunne. She think’s Dunne is desperate. Chauvel, meanwhile says that he doesn’t particularly like such deals saying that voters don’t like being told what to do. He is saying that because he knows that the National-Dunne deal is indeed a Dunne deal and he will not be the local MP.

Chauvel said he will be running a "time for a change" campaign – apparently in April. So far we’ve heard nothing in the electorate about that,( he's too busy focusing on the important issues). However he did say I`ll be satisfied with having my voice heard on the things that matter to me”.

Those in Ohariu-Belmont want to have candidates voices heard on things that matter to them.

John Pagani writes that any voters who wanted to be represented by Mr Dunne would have supported him in 2008. Goff says Dunne is irrelevant. Chauvel calls Dunne a faceless party boss, but it is Dunne who goes to the school fairs, and sticks around to talk to people, while Chauvel just pops his head in and takes off after spinning the raffle wheel. Shanks on the other hand, pops in to a school fair and can’t remember the name of the school when she leaves.

Yet the word on the ground is that lots of people deserted Dunne because of his support of the Labour Government. Many didn’t like Dunne’s support or Labour or his position on the anti-smacking legislation and voted Shanks, who also supported it.

This time around those on the right have got no reason to vote for Shanks, and no reason not to vote against Dunne.

Finally, anyone visited http://charles2011.co.nz here?

Ohariu – why Peter Dunne will increase his majority

I have consistently said since I have moved into the Ohariu electorate that Peter Dunne will retain his seat at elections. I'm not about to change now, in fact I think he'll increase his majority in 2011.

National, as it did in 2008, will be telling its voters in Ohariu to vote for Peter Dunne instead of Katrina Shanks for the candidate vote in this year’s election. For the second time, Shanks will be concentrating on the party vote with a half-hearted attempt at campaigning for the electorate vote. Some National supporters will vote for Dunne, others won’t, but Dunne will win Ohariu in 2011 and the National vote won’t split between Dunne and Shanks in the way some are predicting.

As David Farrar says , if the National vote splits between Dunne and Shanks, Chauvel may come through the middle. Dunne voters may vote Shanks, or Shanks voters vote Dunne for the same reasons – to keep Chauvel out. What Chauvel will want is for Shanks and Dunne to almost tie, and he comes through the middle.

It won’t happen.

Many are comparing this battle to Epsom, where, John Key is happy or National voters to vote Hide to keep Act in Parliament. However the Ohariu electorate is different as Dunne is an effective constituent MP. Even some who party vote Green in Ohariu vote Dunne and may do so again in 2011 in increasing numbers. In 2008 Dunne’s vote dropped as many former Dunne voters voted for Shanks and Chauvel. Some voted Shanks because of Dunne’s support for the anti-smacking legislation, and also because they didn’t like Dunne being part of a Labour Government. Some did not like his position on the Electoral Finance Act, supporting it right up to the final vote, when he then abruptly switched sides. Those who voted Chauvel did so because of his increasingly senior role in Labour, because they got sick of Dunne,and they thought Shanks wasn't worth voting for.

This year, Dunne hasn't given Ohariu voters too much reason to be sick of him, and Shanks hasn't given voters too much reason to vote for her. Chauvel has done neither as he is too busy criticising Dunne and Shanks instead of working in the electorate and promoting Labour's plan for economic recovery.

I’m predicting that Dunne’s majority of 1200 will increase in 2011. Many of those who voted for Shanks in 2008 due to Dunne’s role in the Labour Government will return to Dunne, whereas not so many Dunne voters will vote for Shanks because she hasn’t given then much reason to – and she is now less likely to be a Dunne protest vote.

That’s why more 2008 Shanks voters will vote Dunne in 2011 compared with Dunne voters who will now vote for Shanks. The focus will not only be keeping Chauvel out; the only way to keep Chauvel out will be to retain Dunne so that Chauvel does not come up through the middle due to a split Dunne/Shanks vote.