3News poll

160 comments on “3News poll ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Socialist Paddy 1

   21 July 2013 at 6:26 pm

   Given the quality of the current Labour leadership is anyone surprised?
   • Richard Christie 1.1

     21 July 2013 at 9:32 pm

     Only in that the Nats have allegedly increased support.
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

       21 July 2013 at 9:38 pm

       Even the Roy Morgan has National back around its 12 month highs, while Labour is very close to its 12 month lows.
2. Colonial Viper 2

   21 July 2013 at 6:30 pm

   Voters have decided that the Labour caucus is not fit to govern. Wait until National start applying election year pressure on to Labour.

   Key’s leadership is looking safer.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1

     21 July 2013 at 9:23 pm

     You mean like spending money in election year bribes
     • Mary 2.1.1

       22 July 2013 at 1:41 am

       Or announcing further attacks on citizens. Heck, the more assaults on the New Zealand public the greater the chances he’ll be this country’s longest serving PM. Don’t know quite how that’s supposed to work but it does.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1

         22 July 2013 at 1:50 am

         NZers like strong, firm leaders with smarts and charm.
         • GD 2.1.1.1.1

           23 July 2013 at 3:52 pm

           In other words, it doesn’t matter if they are stupid as long as they have the qualities you’ve mentioned.
     • Wayne (a different one) 2.1.2

       22 July 2013 at 3:09 pm

       No, no need, strong leadership and Policies are what the voter is looking for.

       Besides, if my memory serves me correctly, were not Student Loans and Working for Families Labour bribes on a grand scale which served them well to win two elections, when they looked odds on to lose?
3. gobsmacked 3

   21 July 2013 at 6:43 pm

   3 News also poll people on leaders performing well/badly.

   Shearer lost 10%. Core Labour voters are staying loyal to the party and expressing dissatisfaction with the leader. Only a fool or a payroll hack can fail to get the message.

   Caucus tomorrow in Napier, time for action.
   • Alanz 3.1

     21 July 2013 at 7:46 pm

     So many ears and eyes cannot be wrong. Despite a corrupt, cronyistic and nasty National Government, people neither see nor hear a leader-in-waiting on the opposition bench who can lead a party that is ready to govern.

     Labour needs to show it can get its own house in order and that it is a unified ‘broad church’ party from caucus to membership and affiliates, before it can convince people it is able to manage a coalition government, take the country through these difficult times, and start helping us all adapt to a different future of financial, energy and environmental crises and challenges.

     Come on, Labour Caucus, come on and show us your better selves. Give us reasons, nay, just a very good reason, and remind and rally us, to provide our solid support to you so that you can govern for the common good, in the interest of the many of us in NZ.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       21 July 2013 at 8:20 pm

       So many ears and eyes cannot be wrong.

       Finally got round to watching Us Now last night. It highlights how people are organising via the internet and, interestingly, building trust. The lesson is clear, time for real democracy and not this BS representative democracy that got put in place because the rich/powerful were concerned that the people would lose their dependence upon them.
       • weka 3.1.1.1

         21 July 2013 at 10:05 pm

         I’ll have a look at that, but have to say that plethora of white male faces on their youtube page doesn’t bode well. Nor the idea that we can all be connected as easily as on FB for the purposes of democracy.
         • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.1.1

           21 July 2013 at 10:22 pm

           …that plethora of white male faces on their youtube page doesn’t bode well.

           Yes, I always find the ethnicity of the participants is a handy way of assessing how worthwhile something is… Oh, wait, I’ve got that the wrong way round – it’s completely fucking useless for that.
           • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

             21 July 2013 at 10:38 pm

             I know, it’s really bizarre to think that discussions about new kinds of democracy should include wimmen and non-white people, rather than it being optional.
             • vto …

               22 July 2013 at 2:18 pm

               personally weka, I find things don’t bode well when I see a plethora of brown faces.

               funny how we think the same …………
               • marty mars …

                 22 July 2013 at 2:31 pm

                 how do you cope at the beach with all the tanned people, must be hell for you lol.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.2

           22 July 2013 at 2:38 pm

           One of the points made in the documentary is that, through the online organising, people are no longer basing their decisions on what people look like or what they know of the person but what information the discussion has brought out. And one of the other points made was that wrong information is rapidly corrected – a point that was made by one of the women’s groups covered.
         • Transient Viper 3.1.1.1.3

           22 July 2013 at 9:04 pm

           You fucking racist.
4. bad12 4

   21 July 2013 at 6:47 pm

   Reid poll???? snigger i would never dare to suggest nor hint that the Reid poll is possibly the most corrupted, twisted, biased poll of them all, never you hear,

   Should be a giggle soon as the Slippery cheerleaders start squealing in delight over ‘national governing alone’ as they did during the last trimester…
   • blue leopard 4.1

     21 July 2013 at 7:34 pm

     +1
     New definiton for poll: A form of self fulfilling prophecy; Dictating public opinion by telling the public what the publics’ opinion is.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       21 July 2013 at 7:38 pm

       I’d ban the publication of opinion polls in the 72 hours before a General Election.
       • blue leopard 4.1.1.1

         21 July 2013 at 7:46 pm

         I’d ban them 72 years before a general election
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1

           21 July 2013 at 8:21 pm

           That may be a little extreme but they certainly need to be banned during the electioneering period.
           • felix 4.1.1.1.1.1

             21 July 2013 at 8:43 pm

             I’m not convinced that they serve any legitimate democratic function at any time.
           • weka 4.1.1.1.1.2

             21 July 2013 at 10:07 pm

             I’d go for two weeks minimum, but preferably six weeks or longer. Imagine how the media would have to change for a start.
             • Colonial Viper …

               21 July 2013 at 10:44 pm

               I went for 72 hours in order to balance the need to maintain maximum media freedoms while still serving the needs of the democratic electoral process.
         • King Kong 4.1.1.1.2

           21 July 2013 at 10:26 pm

           I would make it a rule that the results of a poll couldn’t be publisized unless they were good news for the party I support.
           • weka 4.1.1.1.2.1

             21 July 2013 at 10:39 pm

             That doesn’t surprise me.
           • Rosetinted 4.1.1.1.2.2

             21 July 2013 at 10:58 pm

             KK
             That’s amusing. A sense of humour and self-deprecation unnoticed before. I must have missed it before.
         • QoT 4.1.1.1.3

           21 July 2013 at 11:03 pm

           Banned totally unless Nate Silver has personally approved the pollster’s methodology and media narrative told about it.
       • kenny 4.1.1.2

         22 July 2013 at 8:00 am

         Three weeks will do.
     • Jimmie 4.1.2

       21 July 2013 at 11:55 pm

       Hmmm so if Labour was polling 47% and the Nats were on 31% you would still say the same thing?

       Ignoring the polls won’t make them go away – they are a sign that the voting public is not happy with who Labour are right now and haven’t been since 2008.

       Instead of bleating on for years about the inaccuracies of polls and how the evil Nats will be gone once the public awaken to cronyism Labour should have spent 2009-10 reviewing why they lost the lost 2008 election.

       Having worked this out via review they should then have selected a whole new crop of candidates for the 2011 election with the aim of building towards a 2014 victory.

       By 2014 you would have had a crop of keen, fresh upstarts chaffing at the bit to get into the treasury benches with a party and policy to match (and a leader??)

       Key would have found it a lot harder to aim for a 3rd term under this scenario.

       But no what did Labour do? Installed the old has beens in the caucus leadership, kept the same tired policies, and pretended that the polls were inaccurate.

       Result? Record loss at the 2011 election, and very few new MP’s coming in. Throw in a new insipid leader, a broke party, and factional splits more ways than a dominos pizza.

       Now everyone realizes that its a mess but who is gona fix it?
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1

         22 July 2013 at 12:22 am

         +1

         And too many of the new MPs who did get in were chosen because of their support of the status quo hierarchy, not because they were expected to upset the status quo hierarchy.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2.2

         22 July 2013 at 12:54 am

         Hmmm so if Labour was polling 47% and the Nats were on 31% you would still say the same thing?

         Possibly but humanity is a strange beast.

         At the last election a number of voters didn’t vote because they believed National had already won, i.e, influenced by the polls. If they had voted National wouldn’t be in power today.

         Thing is, the people most likely to vote happen to be the right-wingers and so a poll that showed Labour was going to win may, in fact, spur more of them to vote rather than turn them off voting.

         The fact that voting was influenced by the MSMs polling is why it needs to be banned before the election.

         Record loss at the 2011 election

         Um, what? It was one of the closest elections yet in NZ.
         • blue leopard 4.1.2.2.1

           22 July 2013 at 1:27 am

           Oh! I wrote my comment without seeing yours!
         • King Kong 4.1.2.2.2

           22 July 2013 at 8:27 am

           I would agree with your generalisation that left voters are spineless morons.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2.2.2.1

             22 July 2013 at 11:48 am

             Not spineless but a feeling of powerlessness. They will correct for that feeling in one way or another.
         • Enough is Enough 4.1.2.2.3

           22 July 2013 at 12:09 pm

           Why do we assume that the people who did not vote in 2011 were lefties. I have seen no evidence to suggest that proposition is correct.

           The fact that the polls suggested National was going to win could have same effect on right leaning voters. Righties assuming they were going to win stayed at home as there was no real need to leave their palace to stand in a line to vote.

           Some voters only get motivated if they think it will be close and their one vote will make a difference.

           I am not saying that is the case but can has anyone got any evidence that the 2011 non-voters were proporitionally any different to those who did vote?
           • richard 4.1.2.2.3.1

             22 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

             Some figures from http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/

             Just looking at the Party votes:

             Election Labour National
             1999 800,199 629,932
             2002 838,219 425,310
             2005 935,319 889,813
             2008 796,880 1,053,398
             2011 614,937 1,058,636

             While showing the total number of votes received, I couldn’t find the number of people enrolled to vote, so no idea if non-voters increased or decreased from election to election
             • Enough is Enough …

               22 July 2013 at 2:10 pm

               Thanks Richard

               What I am asking is how those numbers stack up for non-voters. It is quite possible that noone has any idea. But for some reason the left thinks the reason we lost was because a million people didn’t turn out to vote in 2011.

               I want to know why we think those non-voters would have voted for the left?

               The polls before and after the election would in fact suggest the opposite.

               I happy to be proven wrong….
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 22 July 2013 at 2:50 pm

                 I want to know why we think those non-voters would have voted for the left?

                 It’s a fact that’s been popping up in research around the world for the last 50+ years. The group most likely not to vote are the poor and they’re most likely to vote for a left leaning party if they voted.
                 • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                   22 July 2013 at 2:51 pm

                   Because left wing people are lazy?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     22 July 2013 at 3:08 pm

                     Left wing people did the Long March and thew out the fucking Chinese capitalists, they also got rid of the Romanovs and then fucked the Wehrmacht

                     the neoliberal pricks took all the jobs away from the working class and now you have the gall to pick over the remains and call people lazy

                     If you want lazy look at the rentier capitalists who sit on their fat asses extracting money from actual productive workers.

                     Apart from rambling incoherently, I think the issue is that there is no left wing political party to vote for, just different shades of the market led capitalist status quo, and political leaders all hyper-attuned to the opinions of the comfortable middle class.
                   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                     22 July 2013 at 3:19 pm

                     I didn’t call them lazy, I was worried you might be.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     22 July 2013 at 4:19 pm

                     Nope.
               • Ross …

                 24 July 2013 at 9:47 pm

                 They most likely would have split along the exact same lines as existed so you most likely would have got the same result.
             • richard …

               22 July 2013 at 4:11 pm

               Thinking about these numbers a bit more, two things emerge:

               1. Bill English will never, ever lead the national party again (joy)
               2. Labour has lost 320,000 voters since the 2005 election.

               Surely someone in the Labour party would be wondering what the party should be doing to get those 320,000 voters back instead of plodding on with the same ol’, same ol’ bollocks which sees them shedding voters.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 22 July 2013 at 4:17 pm

                 And the population has increased since 2005
               • Boadicea …

                 22 July 2013 at 11:50 pm

                 It is the fault of the bloggers on The Standard?
                 It is the fault of David Cunliffe?
                 It can be fixed by coaching from Ian Fraser?
                 If the whole party was run a well as Wellington Central there would be no problem.
                 If Shearer was only given enough time, to prove himself, there would be no problem.
       • blue leopard 4.1.2.3

         22 July 2013 at 1:16 am

         @ Jimmie

         Hmmm so if Labour was polling 47% and the Nats were on 31% you would still say the same thing?

         If Labour were doing the amount of dodgy things that Nat are; such as removing our rights and breaking rules left, right and centre and showing blatant disregard for democratic process on a regular basis and the polls were as positive for Labour as they are for Nats now, yes, I would still be thinking the same thing; that the pollsters are poll pushing ~ using polls to shift opinion. [Because, really, it is hard to see the politicians doing anything to warrant that level of popularity.]

         “Ignoring the polls won’t make them go away”

         I did not say I ignored the polls I said I have trouble trusting that they are anything other than tools of opinion manipulation. A good lie often has some truth involved. A little exaggeration perhaps can go a long way, for instance:

         Why did so many stay at home on election day?

         Could it be that lots of people thought “What is the bloody point; Nat is polling so high~everyone else must like them. My vote won’t make any difference.”?

         Sometimes I suspect that the weakest point of left wing politics may be a certain naivety regarding how low political tactics can go; and discounting such tactics leaves us unable to counteract them. I am aware that opinion manipulation is a pretty sophisticated field of activity; there is a whole science developed on the subject. (more than one science).

         Which brings me to the subject that you mainly speak of, a way forward: strategy.

         I agree with your comments (which, by the way, require none of these reid/roymorgan polls to act upon ~ to have taken the election results seriously would have sufficed)

         What you write is a pretty straight-forward common-sense dare I say obvious way to address the election result; which brings me to the question that naturally arises:

         Where are Labour’s strategists? Who are they? Do they exist at all?, and if so, Where are their heads at???
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.3.1

           22 July 2013 at 1:22 am

           They view the entire country and the wider electorate through bubble-lensed beltway glasses. Hopeless and disconnected.
           • blue leopard 4.1.2.3.1.1

             22 July 2013 at 1:32 am

             The job market is ferocious for ordinary people ~ are political strategists immune to the pressures the rest of us are under?

             Perhaps being fired might give them the life experience they require to engage in everyday issues. (Like joblessness, for example).
             • Colonial Viper …

               22 July 2013 at 1:35 am

               The advisors are usually amongst the most desperate to keep the status quo hierarchy in place; they know if the Leadership team changes, they too will most likely be gone.

               Labour strategists and staffers have fuck all job options compared to the ones working for National. The Tories always look after their own. Well, unless you screw up on a Gilmore scale.
         • David H 4.1.2.3.2

           22 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

           “Why did so many stay at home on election day” ?
           Well just ;look at what they had to vote for, do you really blame them???

           “Where are Labour’s strategists”? Mallard was one, maybe the only one??

           “Who are they”? The same fools that have been there since the 2k5 election debacle.

           “Do they exist at all?, Unfortunately yes

           “Where are their heads at???” Firmly up their arses!

           It may well be that at least a million plus Labour supporters stay home on polling day, or they vote Green.
           • blue leopard 4.1.2.3.2.1

             22 July 2013 at 8:45 pm

             @David H
             re at least a million plus…Perhaps they are going for some sort of record?
       • Saarbo 4.1.2.4

         22 July 2013 at 7:41 am

         +1, perfect summation Jimmie!
       • Foreign Waka 4.1.2.5

         24 July 2013 at 6:13 pm

         Labour – and in this case it is not nomen est omen – is outdated and irrelevant. The few good people who could have saved the day have been put into the corner of shame – for non compliance with these boarding school bullies. It is especially the young that are feeling disaffected and whilst they are not really looking to the Nats they have not many choices. The greens have too early aligned themselves with labour and thus stall. It would be better for the Greens to go it alone and split the vote at a far greater rate so that Dunne and the Teacaddy won’t be the deciders.
         I belief that the time is not quite come for a New Labour but it will come.
5. Yes 5

   21 July 2013 at 7:37 pm

   Polls show that no left party has credibility to run the treasury benches. That’s all. Shearer said labour needs to concentrate on power and house affordability. What about things like international trade, r & d, super bubble and let’s talk about jobs. With GFC reclining now and natural market forces take over the only thing national needs to do is getting the debt levels down. Agree 200b is too much, 80b seems about the right gearing.

   Labour is all about labour now.

   Greens are all about labour swing voters and mana and Maori about individuals. National is the complete package at the moment
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     21 July 2013 at 7:39 pm

     GFC has only just started.
     • Yes 5.1.1

       21 July 2013 at 7:47 pm

       Nah..surplus projected for next 10 years will kill that debt. Next step reign in council spending.
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1

         21 July 2013 at 7:52 pm

         Nah, projected surpluses can’t be used to pay real debt. And those projections don’t take into account GFC phase 2, which is warming up.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1.1.2

         21 July 2013 at 9:26 pm

         Bill English has no plans to repay ANY debt. Hell just keep on rolling it over.

         If theres a surplus, which seems to be just around the corner after the next election…. moving the goalposts every 9 months or so, it will go in tax cuts for the wealthy
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1

           22 July 2013 at 12:59 am

           +1

           National understands that if there’s a government surplus then profits aren’t as high as they could be.
       • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.3

         21 July 2013 at 10:05 pm

         surplus projected for next 10 years will kill that debt.

         That’s awesome. Your projected TAB winnings for the next 10 years will kill your mortgage, too.
       • Puddleglum 5.1.1.4

         22 July 2013 at 10:12 pm

         So you oppose the anchor projects in Christchurch? (National’s ‘think big’ for the city council.)
6. DS 6

   21 July 2013 at 7:46 pm

   For the millionth time: it’s the trend that matters.
   • Yes 6.1

     21 July 2013 at 7:48 pm

     And the trend says?
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       21 July 2013 at 7:51 pm

       That Labour is holding at exactly the same levels as 2009 and 2010.
       • Alanz 6.1.1.1

         21 July 2013 at 9:24 pm

         The Labour patient has been in coma all this time ??
     • Te Reo Putake 6.1.2

       21 July 2013 at 7:52 pm

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUk0CZ_VjM8
     • Blue 6.1.3

       21 July 2013 at 8:43 pm

       That Labour and the Titanic have a lot in common.
7. Yes 7

   21 July 2013 at 8:42 pm

   Breaking news..4 MPs resign from labour tomorrow and defects to greens (2).. Mana(1) and independent (1)
   • felix 7.1

     21 July 2013 at 9:04 pm

     dox or gtfo
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       21 July 2013 at 9:30 pm

       Yes must be doing an apprenticeship with Garner
       • Not a PS Staffer 7.1.1.1

         22 July 2013 at 1:56 pm

         It is school holidays. Yes in bored.
   • North 7.2

     21 July 2013 at 9:29 pm

     Breaking news…….Yes drowns in his own excretia, excrement……no one cares. Particularly ShonKey Python – “Thank Christ……that wannabee fuckwit won’t be phoning again. I’ve told him/her/it time and time again. Ambassador Galapagos Islands has gone ! Gilmore. Shut the prick up”.
8. Psycho Milt 8

   21 July 2013 at 10:01 pm

   It was quite funny to watch, in a black-humour kind of way. Gower obviously feels like the result is a vindication of his efforts to put the vital political issues of the day in front TV3’s viewers – his choices for said vital political issues being, natch, Labour MPs in Sky City’s corporate box and the proposed “man ban” (in quotes because, apparently unlike the professionals working for TV3, I’m not a complete fucking idiot).
9. Core_Labour_Voter (Tory troll) 9

   21 July 2013 at 10:35 pm

   I am disappointed with the negativity shown here over Shearer. OK, I agree Labour is not doing well. But it is holding steady at 31% and the support partner Greens are steady at 12%. NZ First is inching up and I am sure it will cross 5% on election night. All Labour needs to do is claw up another 4% on election night. Then it will be a Labour-Green-NZ First-Hone Centre-Left government. I will start to worry only if Labour drops below 30%. Let us not destabilise the leadership now. Let us stay united folks.
   • QoT 9.1

     21 July 2013 at 11:05 pm

     I’m disappointed with the negativity shown towards the patient’s condition. He isn’t doing well, but he is holding steady at only losing one leg. Let’s not destabilise him by pointing out he’s lost a leg. Let’s stay united.

     Besides, if we wish really hard other folks will come along to prop him up, which is practically the same as having two legs.
     • Santi 9.1.1

       22 July 2013 at 6:54 am

       Wise words, very wise words.
   • Rosetinted 9.2

     21 July 2013 at 11:13 pm

     If we don’t act now when it is important and possible to try and get some real Labour integrity in the Leadership, then when? The present poor cowardly pollies running the Left ticket, will be lucky to get their tired legs over the finish line.
   • Struth 9.3

     21 July 2013 at 11:14 pm

     Labour’s been steady on around 31 for four years. It’s not getting any better. In the latest poll Shearer’s personal competence rating dropped from 36 to 26. The public know he’s just not up to it.

     If your hope of a Labour-led government relies on Shearer picking up four points against Key in the campaign, and Winston getting to five and choosing to play third fiddle to Labour and the Greens (with Hone at his side),then you’re dreaming. He’ll go play kingmaker with his old party the Nats in a second.

     Labour can’t win with Shearer. He needs to go, as does every MP who devised and propped up this dreadful experiment. He owes it to Labour to do the honourable thing.
     • Craig Glen viper 9.3.1

       22 July 2013 at 12:30 pm

       Totally agree Struth.
     • Transient Viper 9.3.2

       22 July 2013 at 9:11 pm

       Why doesn’t he do the honourable thing?

       Surely he can see he is useless. He’s earned good money as opposition leader, and he’s got plenty stashed away in his UN account. Why does he perpetuate his and Labour’s misery?
   • gobsmacked 9.4

     22 July 2013 at 10:11 am

     I suspect that “Core Labour Voter” … isn’t.

     But the “destabilising” line needs exploring. Is it “destabilising” to point out that somebody else is destabilising? So if (e.g.) Shane Jones behaves like a dick, and breaks caucus discipline, is he destabilising, or are we the bad guys because we notice him doing it? If the leader destabilises the party by obeying the right-wing blogs, should we all pretend it didn’t happen?

     Our job is to publicly support the destabilisers at the top, because anything else would destabilise, is that how it goes?
     • McFlock 9.4.1

       22 July 2013 at 8:13 pm

       I suspect that the level of destabilising dickishness comes down to whether the response is proportionate to the perceived fault, and whether the perceived fault is at all reflective of an actual fault.

       E.g. if there was, say, a remit that was shilly-shallied on and then kicked back to council (sorry, council were “asked to reconsider it”), was this poor form because the leader was destabilising the party by obeying the right-wing blogs that thought up a catchy critical tag for that remit, or was the leader boldly listening to the wishes of those proud internet Waitakere Men within the Labour membership who felt that for the good of Labour the remit should never have gotten so far in the process and that even taking the remit to conference was electoral suicide? Or maybe all sides within Labour acted like a dick on that one.
   • Grantoc 9.5

     22 July 2013 at 1:28 pm

     There’s no way that such a centre left coalition will last even 6 months; especially if Shearer is still Labour’s leader and therefore PM. Shearer cant manage Labour and its factions now; let alone a coalition that includes the Greens, NZ First and Mana.

     But it would be fun to watch him try.
     • Saarbo 9.5.1

       22 July 2013 at 7:54 pm

       Fair point.
   • Johnny 9.6

     22 July 2013 at 4:19 pm

     center left?? hone is not center left neither are the greens, both are far left fringe extremists hone particularly. All these egos and nutters in power hone/winston/wussell/lab hacks left over from the clark regime will be an absolute disaster
   • Foreign Waka 9.7

     24 July 2013 at 6:35 pm

     This response is the reason why Labour cannot gain ground. No idea about the future, just hold steady at 30%…..obviously there is no interest and passion for capturing the PEOPLE’S imagination and trying to gun for a majority at the next election.
10. hush minx 10

    21 July 2013 at 11:06 pm

    Seems a little ironic to me that with polls falling short of where labor was in 2008 that Helen Clark is in/ shortly to be in (?) town. She might have a few words of wisdom about how to pull a divided team together…
11. Jenny 11

    21 July 2013 at 11:39 pm

    With human beings
    Perception is everything

    Jenny
    • George D 11.1

      22 July 2013 at 4:08 am

      Yes.

      It might be nice to imagine we’re otherwise, but humans are creatures of emotion and perception. And the thing that the public think of as “Labour” has failed to create these in adequate measure (I’d argue since 2005 or 2006).
12. Daveosaurus 12

    22 July 2013 at 7:12 am

    It’s the infighting, stupid.

    Why should the rest of us vote for a party who can’t even get behind their leader?
13. Boadicea 13

    22 July 2013 at 8:02 am

    We should be at that point where Mike Smith rows in with a patrician ticking off for all of us.
    • Winston Smith 13.1

      22 July 2013 at 8:52 am

      🙂
14. Santi 14

    22 July 2013 at 8:24 am

    It’s time to put differences aside and firmly unite behind David Shearer, who is the leader and our only hope.
    Stay firm, David S.
15. JK 15

    22 July 2013 at 8:27 am

    Our household had the pollsters phone in for this Reid Research poll. The questions were so focused we thought it was the Labour Party doing an “internal” poll. The family member who answered the pollster obviously thinks very much like the rest of NZ – Shearer (and the ABCs) have got it totally wrong. The Labour caucus will be history if they don’t change!
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      22 July 2013 at 8:39 am

      Labour internal polls tend to be by UMR.
    • Santi 15.2

      22 July 2013 at 8:42 am

      Part of the problem is the closeness to the Green Party. Time for David S. to put some space between Labour and the more extreme Green policies.
      He seems to follow Norman. It cannot continue that way.
      • Colonial Viper 15.2.1

        22 July 2013 at 8:44 am

        Lol
16. Winston Smith 16

    22 July 2013 at 8:55 am

    Gee Labour going down in the polls…theres a surprise but don’t wonrry its probably just a rogue poll and the only one that counts is on election day 🙂
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1

      22 July 2013 at 9:06 am

      It’s more complicated than that, Winston.

      1. The polls are rogue.

      2. All polls are captured by corporate interests and they make the results up to discourage the left.

      3. People are waking up. Why, I just spoke to someone the other day who has voted for John Key and now sees he is corrupt.

      4. Labour is not popular because it is too right wing. Once it moves left of the Mana party, it will be massively popular.
      • Santi 16.1.1

        22 July 2013 at 9:23 am

        I second your superb analysis.
      • King Kong 16.1.2

        22 July 2013 at 9:24 am

        Don’t forget;

        5. On the third coup he arose triumphant to heal the hearts of the unfaithful. And lo, Cunliffe did give the right of the caucus sight and to the left he brought wisdom and he ruled forever and ever.
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.2.1

          22 July 2013 at 9:26 am

          Amen.
      • felix 16.1.3

        22 July 2013 at 2:28 pm

        “Labour is not popular because it is too right wing. Once it moves left of the Mana party, it will be massively popular.”

        I’d be happy if they moved to the left of the National party.
17. erikter 17

    22 July 2013 at 9:51 am

    Shearer is lucky the earthquake hit and took away attention from this poll. The TV1 poll will be interesting. I assume it is next weekend?

    Another bad poll, another nail in the coffin for Shearer. Hard to see how he will be able to move on with this continued scrutiny of his leadership. Once it starts, it is hard to shake off esp when your colleagues are trying to undermine you.
    • Not a PS Staffer 17.1

      22 July 2013 at 11:10 am

      erikter is a troll.
      it is saying the opposite on other pages.
      erikter to be banned again
18. Winston Smith 18

    22 July 2013 at 12:30 pm

    On a serious note for a change, how dispiriting is it for you Labour supporters to see Labour going backwards yet knowing how simple a fix it would be to get Labour going forward.

    The ideas that are bandied about are quite simple: replace Shearer, older MPs to leave, work as a team, stop shooting yourselves in the foot and refocus on the working man and woman

    Its not hard or earth shattering yet time and time again Labour start to gain traction yet someone comes along and sticks their fott in their mouth

    I don’t know how you do it
    • vto 18.1

      22 July 2013 at 12:40 pm

      You are right that the formula is simple.

      But you are wrong that it is merely “dispiriting”. It is much worse than that to have a crooked liar and ex-money trader as the Prime Minister. Someone who panders to the dollar over everything else. Someone who lies so easily he can’t even keep up himself. Someone who continually makes things harder for the lowly and easier for the rich. Someone who wants to record all of my information all day every day. Someone who lies and in a complete and utter fascist manner trashes democracy so that his voters can steal water they could not otherwise obtain for their greedy desires.

      You sound like you are one of those unaffected by the acts and lies of this corrupt government and its arsehole participants.
      • Winston Smith 18.1.1

        22 July 2013 at 1:13 pm

        No not really but the economy is doing better than most, unemployment down, crime down so looking at the big picture NZ is in a pretty good place
        • King Kong 18.1.1.1

          22 July 2013 at 1:16 pm

          Don’t forget that people in my boat just made another $70000 on the value of their house in the last year. Yay National.
          • vto 18.1.1.1.1

            22 July 2013 at 1:57 pm

            fool
          • felix 18.1.1.1.2

            22 July 2013 at 2:05 pm

            cool, what did you buy with it?
            • vto 18.1.1.1.2.1

              22 July 2013 at 2:06 pm

              lol
            • King Kong 18.1.1.1.2.2

              22 July 2013 at 3:30 pm

              I bought a new monocle and a beautifully crafted walking cane with which to strike street urchins who get in my way when traveling to my club.
              • felix …

                22 July 2013 at 3:48 pm

                *whoosh*
              • tricledrown …

                22 July 2013 at 5:18 pm

                King kong so sophisticated as I didn’t expect caves were so valuable!
                Your an example of primitive instincts destroying 100’s of 1,000’s of years of civilization .
                Don’t beat your chest to loudly !
19. captain hook 19

    22 July 2013 at 1:17 pm

    New Zealand is not a good place when every second person is using the Hooton inspired interrogative figure of speech.
    This one was dreamed up by him to distinguish National Party supporters from others and it is disrespectful, an invalid argument from authorty and dishonest.
    Its all over the talkshows and the sports announcers and it is the most dishonest result of slimy politics this country has ever seen.
    isn’t it?
20. Brett Dale 20

    22 July 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Exactly how low does labour have to go in the polls, until the “You have to look at the trends” people will admit, they’re in trouble.
    • Winston Smith 20.1

      22 July 2013 at 1:49 pm

      They’ll never admit it…
    • felix 20.2

      22 July 2013 at 2:09 pm

      They’re right though, you do have to look at the trends. Anything else is noise.

      And the trend shows Labour has been flatlining for a long long time.
      • McFlock 20.2.1

        22 July 2013 at 3:44 pm

        Not really. A long gradual positive incline followed by a steeper (but not yet deeper) dip.

        Causes? Maybe labour. Maybe the time of year. My personal suspicion is that it might have something to do with two or three of the main political editors in NZ media having placed their reputations on the line for poor labour performance and a leadership change. If there is no leadership change before the end of the year, people might think they are full of shit. If there is a change, they are mystically-gifted seers. If labour goes down further, it’s a “crisis for Shearer”. If labour go up a few points, it’s “might not be enough to save him”. If it goes up further, it’s “managing to hold off the challengers… for now”. My point being that it’s not more than just “tory media” – senior individuals have essentially staked their professional reputation on the labour caucus being a simmering pot of discontent just waiting to boil over. How true that is, or whether people have largely jiggled into their respective roles, is now irrelevant to the story.

        How long does it take to get signatures on a letter, anyway? Don’t they only need something like 18?
        • felix 20.2.1.1

          22 July 2013 at 4:40 pm

          “A long gradual positive incline followed by a steeper (but not yet deeper) dip”

          Mostly within the margin of error. Labour’s polling in real terms is flat.
          • McFlock 20.2.1.1.1

            22 July 2013 at 5:01 pm

            What – 27 to 35-odd is flat? Nope. That would be underfitting a trendline for rhetorical effect. In fact given that the election is the absolute measure of support (rather than the estimate of support that the polls are – an election is a complete count of the population who cast a valid vote, rather than a likely sample of that population), there shouldn’t even be a MoE on 27%.

            “Close to where they started”, maybe, but not “flat”.
            • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1.1.1

              22 July 2013 at 5:10 pm

              Dead flat from 2009 and 2010.
              • McFlock …

                22 July 2013 at 5:27 pm

                By that logic, Edmund Hillary had a dead flat walk between March and June, 1953.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  22 July 2013 at 5:31 pm

                  More like walking to the bottom of the cook strait and coming back up on to dry land.
                  • McFlock …

                    22 July 2013 at 5:37 pm

                    And who led labour to the bottom of Cook Strait? I suppose at the moment they’re wandering around the foothills of the Kaikouras, to torture the analogy. Who knows whether they’ll head off to Aoraki/Mt Cook, or boldly stomp off towards the Pacific Basin? Certainly not Garner or Gower.

                    But at least you’re getting the idea that similar elevations quite some distance apart do not mean that the intermediate elevations are “dead flat”.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      22 July 2013 at 5:54 pm

                      Fuck you’re a valiant, if oblique, defender of the current Labour hierarchy.

                      Labour under Shearer is polling exactly the same as Goff, at the same stage of the triannum. The current polling performance is nothing more than a reversion to the 2009/2010 mean. Dead flat in other words.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 July 2013 at 6:04 pm

                      On what fucking planet is “steep descent into a deep valley, followed by a long but gradual rise, and then a bit of a drop over the last wee bit to end up at roughly the same elevation before the descent” ever a description that is interchangeable with “dead flat”? Try walking the two, and you might figure out why you’re underfitting the trendline for rhetorical effect. Or, in words you can understand, “making shit up”.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      22 July 2013 at 6:10 pm

                      I don’t care how elaborate a path you’ve taken mate, Labour is right back where it was in 2009, 2010, and most of 2011.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 July 2013 at 6:56 pm

                      To be slightly more precise, you don’t care to let reality get in the way of your assessments of labour’s performance over the last couple of terms.

                      For example, the half dozen morgan polls in 2009 where Labour polled in the high 20s. Number of times they’ve polled in the 20s since the 2011 election? Four. None in 2013. Although Labour did slightly better over 2008, (difference seems to be the greens were polling quite a bit lower but that might imply that labour going more left might simply take votes from the greens). 2011 results don’t seem to be on the RM website, but ISTR Labour having at least one RM result in the low 20s during 2011.

                      “Dead flat” indeed.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      22 July 2013 at 9:00 pm

                      OK I admit it, you got me fair and square. There is a real difference between 28% in 2009 and 31% in 2013. Shearer should certainly take all the credit that difference entails.
                    • Alanz …

                      22 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

                      Shearer should not disproportionately take so very much credit for that 3 percent diff. There is also someone called Shonkey.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 July 2013 at 9:29 pm

                      There is a real difference between 28% in 2009 and 31% in 2013.

                      aaaaand – you’ve lost the point again. Shit must have been getting too real for you.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      22 July 2013 at 9:41 pm

                      You want to give Shearer the credit for that massive uplift? Cool.

                      Go die in a ditch with Shearer if you like, McFlock, good luck to you mate.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 July 2013 at 9:53 pm

                      you almost had it, too. “dead flat”… all that?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      22 July 2013 at 9:56 pm

                      You still trying to prove yourself right on a technicality? Hey good for you, I concede, you win.

                      A move in the polls from 28% to 31% over 4 years is not “dead flat”. It’s actually a solid positive trend. Labour should be at 34% under Shearer, by say 2017.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 July 2013 at 10:24 pm

                      Given that an RM poll just before the election had labour on 23%, and that 31% is the low point of the trends over the last few months, it’s more than a technicality. But the point, yet again, is that calling the line between 2009 and now “flat” is fucking stupid. It’s like calling the earth “blue” and saying no more thought about it is needed. But you need to look at labour’s polling with such massive granularity because if you actually looked at the details you’d have to admit that the world is slightly more complex that ‘cunliffe good leader, everyone else in caucus evil and/or abjectly incompetent leader’.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      22 July 2013 at 10:28 pm

                      I’ve already admitted that Shearer has caused an uplift in the polls to 31%. What more do you want?

                      What would you know about concepts of leadership complexity? Shearer is just fine, remember.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 July 2013 at 10:47 pm

                      Are you really so stupid as to think that:
                      A) because the line between two arbitrarily-selected points is straight, the best description of the observations between those points is also a straight line; and
                      B) party polling is interchangeable in meaning with party leadership;
                      so therefore
                      Conclusion) the entirety of party leadership performance can bejudged by the slope of a straight line between two arbitrarily-selected points?

                      Any one of those statements is stupid, and yet that seems to be the gist of your argument: shearer is proved to be bad because the polls have not much slope between two arbitrary points.
                    • felix …

                      23 July 2013 at 1:10 am

                      “Arbitrarily selected” lolz.

                      Point (a) is Labour’s support when Shearer took office. Point (b) is Labour’s support now.

                      If you think there are any two less arbitrary points by which to measure Labour’s performance under Shearer’s leadership, I’d love to know what they are.
                    • McFlock …

                      23 July 2013 at 1:45 am

                      Apart from the fact that CV wasn’t using election night as his initial points for “dead flat” were “2009 and 2010”. But even if we compared the real observation of election night (rather than an RM estimate from Nov2011), the best description of the RM estimates between those points is not a straight line, “flat” or otherwise.

                      The last three RM points have been a deviation from the pattern over the last 18 months (three consecutive falls for Labour), and this is a concern. About three times as much of a concern as a single lower point – so I’m not shitting bricks just yet.

                      But what’s more of a concern for me is the frenzy by Garner/Gower et al – it could possibly just be a self-fulfiling prophecy (a bit like talking down stock price). If it’s genuinely someone else in caucus angling for position before list selection (I don’t think it’s Cunliffe if it is), then they deserve a kick in the nuts. Taking this long to have the confidence issue done and dusted beggars belief.

                      Heh – come to think of it, if there is someone trying to do that and making such a pig’s breakfast of it, then the lack of political deftness would seem to be in character for someone who likes to shit on Labour’s only real coalition hope for the government benches… well, now that Chris carter’s gone, anyway 🙂
                    • felix …

                      23 July 2013 at 2:06 am

                      “the best description of the RM estimates between those points is not a straight line, “flat” or otherwise.”

                      And the difference between those two points is…
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      23 July 2013 at 2:09 am

                      Its an upslope, I tellsya, Shearer despite a few minor flaws has been such a boost for Labour, why can’t everyone see that?! Yer bunch of ungrateful Judases!
                    • McFlock …

                      23 July 2013 at 2:37 am

                      And the difference between those two points is…

                      One was the upswing of a downward trend (RM had one point before the election of lab on 23.5%) whereas the other is the downswing on an upward trend?
                      18 months?
                      Whether your glasses tint is rosy red, tory blue, or depression black?
                    • felix …

                      23 July 2013 at 3:06 am

                      3.5% is the most charitable reading. And most of that was made up in the first month.

                      1. Shearer took over leadership of Labour in December 2011 after an election result of 27.5%.

                      2. The first RM of 2012 had Labour still at 27.5%.

                      3. By the end of Jan 2012 RM had Labour at 30.5%

                      4. 18 months later Labour is at 31%

                      It’s margin of error stuff whichever way you look at it.
                    • McFlock …

                      23 July 2013 at 4:37 am

                      If you insist on ignoring every single datapoint in between.
                      If you ignore the possibility (likelihood) that RM used the election to calibrate their regional and demographic sampling weights in order to make the first poll after the election match the election result.
                      If you ignore the other parties and performance of likely coalition partners in parliament and pretend it’s an FPP two-horse race.

                      If you’re prepared to throw out every principle of statistical analysis in the textbook, just so you can act all emo teen, then if all that, why even bother looking at the polls? Reality might get in the way of a really good sulk.
                    • felix …

                      23 July 2013 at 4:44 am

                      lolz. Are you saying that the current level (31%) is wildly out of step with the rest of the datapoints?

                      What is the median level of support over the past 18 months?
                    • felix …

                      23 July 2013 at 5:07 am

                      ps you’re right I don’t know much about statistical data analysis. What does it indicate when the mean, median and mode are the same?
                    • McFlock …

                      23 July 2013 at 5:54 am

                      Over time-series datapoints between 27% to 35.5%? It means you’re trying to find a midpoint of the set rather analyse whether/how the set has changed over time. Finding a line of best fit would be more suitable.

                      It also means that this insomnia is a bitch, and I’ll probably be quite nasty todarrow. But then you’re in the same boat, unless you’re shiftworking. 🙂
        • Psycho Milt 20.2.1.2

          23 July 2013 at 6:31 am

          …it might have something to do with two or three of the main political editors in NZ media having placed their reputations on the line for poor labour performance and a leadership change.

          That’s my suspicion too. Watching Gower peddling a survey he’s had done on whether Labour voters think Shearer needs to go for Labour to win the next election, I was wondering why he’d commission that poll – the most plausible answer is he’s now got a personal stake in Shearer getting rolled, having effectively staked his reputation on it.
          • North 20.2.1.2.1

            23 July 2013 at 7:17 am

            Reputation??????????????

            Mine Potty,Gower???????

            LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            • McFlock 20.2.1.2.1.1

              23 July 2013 at 8:12 am

              I’m sure he thinks he has one.
          • Santi 20.2.1.2.2

            23 July 2013 at 7:23 am

            Wrong, wrong, wrong.
            The leader David Shearer needs to stay for Labour to win the next election.
            • Sable 20.2.1.2.2.1

              23 July 2013 at 1:22 pm

              Shearer has shown himself to be lacking, Labour needs someone who is willing to stand up and fight.
21. Sable 21

    23 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Shearer has been handed an enormous amount of ammunition by National in the form of lies and half truths he could have used to cut Keys down to size and yet he has repeatedly failed to monopolize on these opportunities. He has to GO NOW and let someone more capable such as Annette King take the reigns.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS