Helen, stop critiquing polls

Written By: Steve Pierson - Date published: 9:23 am, June 25th, 2008 - 318 comments
Categories: helen clark, polls - Tags:

Everyone in the know is aware that Colmar Brunton is the worst polling company in New Zealand and constantly over-rates National. We also know Fairfax isn’t much better. There’s no use in going on about it. It’s not a good look.

The fact is Labour is well behind National in the polls. There’s no point pretending that isn’t the case. Instead there are two points that you can make:

1) This is MMP. It is the largest group of parties, not the largest single party, that governs. Labour has both the experience and the allies to make workable governing arrangements Labour doesn’t need to win more votes than National to lead the next government.

2) Labour is coming into this as the underdog and, in reality, that’s where the Left always is against the Right – we have the people but they have the power. There’s nothing scary or impossible about that situation. Admit you are the under-dog and the challenge goes on National to prove they deserve to govern in their own right. PLacing yourself as under-dog undermines this constant vacuous nonsense of ‘time for a change’ and foils hit and run attacks from National. The pressure will go on the tories, and their facade will be shown for what it is.

318 comments on “Helen, stop critiquing polls”

Comments are now closed

« Previous 1 … 8 9 10

burt 316

1 July 2008 at 10:12 am

rOb

I could say wiki is public domain, shall I go and edit it there as well to validate myself

RE: your 8:40 am comment.

Re Rodney, the “out of context quote’ was only about not wanting the courts messing with parliament:

There is a reason for that: we do not want the courts looking into Parliament and at how it spends the money. That is why we have never put it on the statute book; it is for Parliament itself to decide.

Yes, but we need to understand “that”, loosely it’s defined as “the thing you are pointing at” The dictionary definition is quite verbose.

So was Rodney pointing to RV or laws for spending public money?

“There is a reason for ~~that~~RV: we do not want the courts looking into Parliament and at how it spends the money…”

OR:

“There is a reason for ~~that~~Electoral funding laws: we do not want the courts looking into Parliament and at how it spends the money…”
r0b 317

1 July 2008 at 10:18 am

I could say wiki is public domain, shall I go and edit it there as well to validate myself

Heh! Nice one.

Re Rodney quote, OK I can see your case, you can argue the words ambiguous. Hard to argue the fact that ACT didn’t vote for the DvC amendment though.

If you ever bump in to Rodney you should ask him!
Anita 318

1 July 2008 at 7:56 pm

burt,

I do wonder some times if parliament ever thinks through the logical consequences of it’s actions. By exercising RV for election funding years over 14 years parliament can say: No electoral funding law have been broken in the last 14 years.

The retrospective validation did not apply to electoral laws (funding or otherwise). So if the pledge card meant Labour broke the electoral spending cap, parliament did not validate that, if their conduct was unlawful it remained unlawful. (Ditto for all the other parties which also has dubious spending by PS).