No safe bets on Hamilton’s voting

Press, 31 October 1981, Page 23

No safe bets on Hamilton’s voting

Hamilton’s political punters have recently been putting their money on National to retain the city’s east and west electorates, perhaps with an easing in the 1978 support level, but with slightly better majority margins over Labour. But there are now signs that enough voters will be playing political hopscotch during the next weeks to make any punt an unwise investment.

/ The Social Credit wedge ‘driven firmly between ’-National and Labour ranks 'means that nothing can be '.’predicted with certainty in .-“the two Hamilton seats this /election. National has had a 1006■‘vote lead over Labour in /Hamilton West and Labour

i has reasonable grounds in that it has a jbchance.

In Hamilton East, a more conservative " electorate held by a Cabinet g Minister, National's majority ' is 1361. But the seat is by no means in the bag for ; -National. J The seats have tended to

■ 'reflect national voting trends Zrover the years. In elections <• since 1969, results in the

electorates have produced party, support levels running almost hand-in-hand with the national figures. This election, Labour is giving the two Hamilton seats everything it has got. It has seen “organisation” work wonders for National and, in best Japanese style, has studied, copied, and where possible has improved. The result is a superbly revived and streamlined organisation in Hamilton West, where Labour seems to have beaten National at its own game, and one almost as strong in Hamilton East.

But even that valuable edge may make a precarious premise for bets. For example: through its sophisticated and largely complete computer card house-by-house support identification, Labour intends to gain about 700 votes by flushing out every last one of 1978’s pro-Labour non-voters. If it is to make any headway, Labour must recoup its defectors to Social Credit and be confident that the league will not also shed National defectors being tugged by old loyalties.

Many unknown factors involve Social Credit. Will the league boost its useful support (18.8 per cent of the poll in the East in 1978 and 17.1 per cent in the West)? If so, from whom will it come?

Which party will gather the Values voters of last election? Support for Values was low in 1978 (399 votes in East and 296 in West), but in a tight finish those votes could be crucial.

Which way will Hamilton’s new voters swing? The city is noted for its moving population and, since the last election, it has seen a turnover of more than 30 per cent.

There is general agreement that Hamilton West is more vulnerable, but the sitting member, Mr Michael Minogue, seems to have a slight edge.

Because of his stance on some of his party’s own policy, he should be one of the last National members to be harmed by an anti-Gov-ernment swing. Further, he is running against two -newcomers: Labour’s Mr P. 0. McCaffrey and Social Credit’s Mr Trevor Cros'bie.

Mr Crosbie is very much the late-comer and may have to struggle to make up ground when his full-time campaigning begins soon. But Mr McCaffrey, a fulltime campaigner since April,

has been working hard to match Mr Minogue’s prominent public image. Labour or Social Credit hope that the divisions Mr Minogue has created will send a few National voters their way, or at least keep them home on polling day.

In Hamilton East, the Minister for the Environment, Dr lan Shearer, does not have the advantage of inexperienced political opponents.

Ms Lois Welch (Labour) and Ms Lorna Booth (Social Credit) stood against him in 1978 and familiar opposition faces on the hustings should breed increased support. But Dr Shearer should be set for another term in Parliament. Of the two

Hamilton seats, his looks more secure for National.