An alternative explanation is that Nash ran an exceptional two election strategy to win based on reducing the majority from 9018 in 2008 to 3701 in 2011.
He was blessed with the perfect issue, amalgamation, and a little known candidate who was on the wrong side of the issue.
Rough numbers are that each electorate has 35,000 voters, so a 10 per cent swing is worth 3500 votes. For Anna Lorck to overcome the current majority of 6490 she will have to gain a majority of nearly double this.
A swing of this magnitude would be a huge surprise when the polls have National leading Labour by a very considerable margin.
Regrettably for Simon Lusk's argument, party vote polls are no guide to electorate outcomes and he's wrong again when he says that overturning a 6490 majority would be "unprecedented".
In Aoraki, Jim Sutton saw a 6453 majority in 2002 turn into a 6937 deficit in 2005.
Mike seems to have a different definition of overturning a majority of over 6500. Overturning a majority means winning in a single election.
It did not happen in Aoraki where Jo Goodhew overturned a majority of 6453 in 2005. That year National won 10 seats from Labour. None of these seats had a majority of more than 6500.
Then Mike uses New Plymouth as an example. Again his logic is not based on the facts.
That's a turnaround of 13,390 votes in a seat very similar to Tukituki. Harry Duynhoven saw his 15,000-plus majority go up in smoke in New Plymouth in a similar fashion.
Harry Duynhoven won by 14,930 in 2002. He won by 5439 in 2005. He lost by 105 votes in 2008, in part due to some unfavourable boundary changes.
This table proves my version of the facts, and proves my point it is unprecedented to overturn a majority of more than 6500 in a single election.
Majority overturned 2002-2005
Electorate Winner2002 Winner2005
Aoraki
SUTTON (LAB) 6453 GOODHEW (NAT) 6937
East Coast
MACKEY (LAB) 5343 TOLLEY (NAT) 1219
Hamilton East
YATES (LAB) 614 BENNETT (NAT) 5298
Invercargill
PECK (LAB) 2792 ROY, Eric (NAT) 2052
Napier
FAIRBROTHER (LAB) 4157 TREMAIN (NAT) 3591
Northcote
HARTLEY (LAB) 2624 COLEMAN (NAT) 2383
Otago
PARKER (LAB) 684 DEAN (NAT) 1995
Tukituki
BARKER (LAB) 6410 FOSS (NAT) 2402
Wairarapa
BEYER (LAB) 6372 HAYES (NAT) 2752
Whanganui
PETTIS (LAB) 2070 BORROWS (NAT) 2402
I am more than willing to make a contribution to Mike's worthy charity if he can prove there has been any MP to win a general electorate overturning a majority of more than 6500 in a single election since 2002.
Lastly, Simon Lusk ignores the electoral elephant in the room.
Much of the 6490 majority Lawrence Yule would have to defend will be a personal vote built up by Craig Foss over five elections and some of it will be an endorsement of John Key as Leader.
This is opinion that cannot be debated with pure facts, though certain facts that are applicable are Labour no longer has Helen Clark as leader.
More importantly Mike Williams is not fundraising so Labour are flat broke and can't afford a massive spend in election year. No one should underrate the importance of Mike's fundraising ability.
Further the New Zealand economy, and consumer confidence are very, very high, which will favour the incumbent National administration.
Key not being leader and Foss not being the candidate are facts. I am not willing to concede this makes a material difference to the outcome of Tukituki in 2017 - or as Mike is suggesting, Labour will win it.
I believe National will win in Tukituki because Yule has a positive profile, Lorck has a polarising profile, English is leading a National government that is presiding over a strong economy, Labour is trailing badly in the polls and Labour doesn't have a fundraiser like Mike Williams ensuring they have a properly funded campaign.
- Simon Lusk is a Hawke's Bay-based campaign manager. He is not involved in the Tukituki campaign.
