If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

Heroic of FP and BB to try to stem the tide of disillusionment with National's policies. FP, you seem to forget that Labour has spent millions on its brand over the years, if it was your money, would you just throw in the towel? Especially since they were in for nine spectacular years last time.

Yes. I learnt long ago that it's quite pointless throwing good money after bad.
As far as candidate selection goes, they should simply select the best available. Full stop. Any quota system will give an inferior result. Common sense is missing from quota selection.

[winner69]

I think Mr Reason is a bit jealous of our ex PM

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion...in-record-time

[777]

I didn't realise that the Labour Party had any money to spend. You learn something every day.

[elZorro]

I didn't realise that the Labour Party had any money to spend. You learn something every day.

While Labour will have spent millions, National has probably spent tens of millions. Easy enough to do the numbers.

[fungus pudding]

While Labour will have spent millions, National has probably spent tens of millions. Easy enough to do the numbers.

Difference is National have spent their money while Labour have wasted theirs.

[GTM 3442]

I suspect that once upon a time, both Labour and National were mass-membership political parties, which relied on their membership for a significant proportion of their income.

I rather think that them days is gone, and that they now both have a small, financially-irrelevant membership, leaving the parties - and their policies - at the mercy of the donor base.

As for the value of money, it might be instructive to total the warchests of the various Republican candidates for the US Presidency, and see who got how much bang for their buck.

[elZorro]

I suspect that once upon a time, both Labour and National were mass-membership political parties, which relied on their membership for a significant proportion of their income.

I rather think that them days is gone, and that they now both have a small, financially-irrelevant membership, leaving the parties - and their policies - at the mercy of the donor base.

As for the value of money, it might be instructive to total the warchests of the various Republican candidates for the US Presidency, and see who got how much bang for their buck.

The two main parties don't reveal their paid-up member numbers that often. And despite wishful thinking by some posters here, Labour is the other main party. They have their leader on TV1 on Tuesdays, Bill gets to front on Monday. Labour could have in the region of 15,000 paid-up members, National might have 30,000. Both have had higher numbers in the past, Labour did take a hit in membership during/after Rogernomics. That was understandable, Labour looked more National than the Nats back then. It's simple maths to see that if every paid-up member contributed an average $300 a year, the parties would each have a few million to work with during the election year. This is predominantly used for brand awareness.

[fungus pudding]

The two main parties don't reveal their paid-up member numbers that often. And despite wishful thinking by some posters here, Labour is the other main party.

Who are they eZ? Care to name them?

[elZorro]

Who are they eZ? Care to name them?

All the members? Closely guarded secret.

Bill English not too sure what's going on.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...nto-the-stands

[Baa_Baa]

The two main parties don't reveal their paid-up member numbers that often. And despite wishful thinking by some posters here, Labour is the other main party. They have their leader on TV1 on Tuesdays, Bill gets to front on Monday. Labour could have in the region of 15,000 paid-up members, National might have 30,000. Both have had higher numbers in the past, Labour did take a hit in membership during/after Rogernomics. That was understandable, Labour looked more National than the Nats back then. It's simple maths to see that if every paid-up member contributed an average $300 a year, the parties would each have a few million to work with during the election year. This is predominantly used for brand awareness.

It would be good if the discussion moved on to something meaningful in an election year, like for example policies and alliances to win the election.

This stuff is just trivial and boring. We get it, Labour can't and never will achieve the same or even similar levels of financial support because their supporter base can't possibly ante up enough of a combined share of their government benefits to compete against the filthy rich national supporters.

Can we move on now?