Written By: - 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.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
See Rudman in the Herald today.
This is the same Mr Power who less than a year ago was on his high horse about the last 500 extra prison beds having cost taxpayers nearly $1 million each. So how many million-dollar beds is this election promise going to add to National’s porkometer total?
To Labour, stop pissing about with light bulbs…
Steve P.
Since about the time the standard started we have been hearing about the “natural left bloc” of voters and how the natural left bloc has been bigger than the nasty right wing vote. But oh no – polls look really really bad so the story changes to suit the spin.
Sad sad sad.
Clinton
Spot on again – I’m 100% in agreement with your analysis.
Helen is using her spin in the hope that elements of the left don’t stay home on polling day. As I expect some of them might, as they regard the effort as futile. As it’s clear the long term trends are established, the best outcome Clark can hope for is to call the election ASAP.
Okay then if I read this post right.
You would have no problem at all with National becoming the government even though they get less seats than Labour, but they form a coalition with say NZ first.
Just wanted to know this beforehand, because Im pretty sure if that happened, people will be no here saying…
“Unfair, Labour got more seats” “Labour got more Votes”
Oh could you also please provide some evidence that those two polling places are showing bias towards National
Burt. No. check my edit, which I was going to make any way (I wrote this post last night). The Left has more people, more activists, and most base support, but the Right has the money and the power. We are, after all, living in an essentially rightwing economic structure with some leftwing elements.
elements of the left don’t stay home on polling day.
I think the base of both always come out to vote, regardless. Its the middle swing vote she is trying to talk to. IMO you may be correct in calling for an election early, it may be the only hope of a tight race for Labour, as would force the Nats hand.
As I said, labour have a tin ear at present. Focus on important issues and stop the self inflicted wounds of bloody lightbulbs..
HS
Thats twice in one day you agree 100%, time to hand in your VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) membership card
Brett Dale. I have no problem with that (except I never want to see National in government). In fact, there is such a situation now in Sweden, where the Social Democrats are the largest party but a coalition led by the right-leaning Moderates governs.
The coalition supported by the most voters should govern. That’s democracy. What does the relative size of the largest party in a coalition have to do with it?
I assume you would have no trouble with a LPG coalition governing if Labour got fewer votes than National.
Polls used to say how many were undecided. In not doing that any more they exaggerate the proportions of those who are decided.
This election hangs on what roughly 10%-15% of supposedly decided voters do. The other 85%-90% more or less have their minds made up.
It is fascinating watching the Right here in NZ successfully using the same tactics the US Right used over the past 15 years to trick voters into casting votes for a party with hidden policies that are actually contrary to their interests.
Make elections about morality, smacking, queers and all sorts of other stuff that either isn’t true or doesn’t actually play a role in the lives of most people…..and then lie or fudge or conceal your stance on all the issues that really DO affect the lives of most people.
On your side is the simple fact that life is now complex enough that a huge number of people – maybe 20% – have no real idea of how the legal / governmental world around them actually works….so you you communicate with then emotionally on these moral issues instead. Stuff they think they understand.
If you can, make them hate their government so you can dismantle it and remove the checks on the power of business to do as they please.
It’s been working. Unfortunately, the greedy pigs in the US have gone too far and voters are waking up to the wreckage accumulating around them.
Looks like the generations of the Kiwis alive today may have to learn this lesson the hard way, too. There may not be enough thoughtful, curious people around with memories to stop it.
I have nothing against the National party other than their hostility to democracy and apparent lack of respect for the average voter. If this were not the case, they would not play cynical games for electoral advantage and would instead argue their policies, on their merits with the people who must decide to back them or not: voters.
Naitonal sees no value in doing that. Fair enough.
I see no value in voting for them. If it is to be the money or the bag, I’m not taking the bag where the future of NZ is at stake.
I personally want to see a system , with the party that gets the most seats/votes becomes the government.
I dont like a system that has a party like The Greens who may get 6% of the vote have a big say in who gets in power, they may have 6% of the vote, but 94% of New Zealanders didnt vote for them.
As for saying Labour has more people, well if National gets more seats and votes in this upcoming government would you agree that National now has more people?
Andy: The lightbulb policy change is an excellent one. It allows NZ to reduce power consumption by almost 20% in barely 3 years. That is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to all of us. You can count that money twice, the second time for the power plants we don’t have to build to supply that power. The river(s) we don’t have to dam.
The NZ Herald’s negative portrayal of the light bulb issue is just one more example of their interest in getting National elected and LACK of interest in what is best for New Zealand. No more evidence is needed there.
I have used CFLs for a decade. They last many years each. They are much cheaper to use. They are safe to use. They are more than bright enough to navigate when first turned on and brighten very quickly. They needn’t be that ugly blue-ish light. The people moaning about them clearly don’t use them and have never seriously considered using them. There is a CFL or high-efficiency option for any purpose.
The reaction to this worthwhile policy change is typical of the “knocker” mentality that has no rational basis in evidence or (informed) experience. Some idiot goes off half-cocked, buys the wrong thing and it is forever someone else’s fault. Heard it too often.
In this case, it is also simple ignorant bigotry from the political clique determined to make any good thing look bad for political advantage.
Unfortunately, that clique now includes Auckland’s only daily newspaper. OK, a couple of columnists occasionally differ and John Armstrong is (too often) a lonely voice of reason and balance amid the overt bias of the leader writers……but that isn’t good enough.
Brett – Can you think of any reason at all why 6% of NZers shouldn’t have proportional representation of their views?
Other than that they disagree with you I mean.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how your system could result in tyranny of a minority. Or a majority. Both of which are demonstrably bad.
Good to hear you are not denial Steve like the leader of your left wing cause.
“The pressure will go on the tories”
No pressure yet and I think Helen will go under more pressure soon explaining why she wants to waste 10 mil on deferring the anti-smacking referendum http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10518214
Steve – agreed. The argument against CFL’s is basically “I want the freedom to be indefensibly stupid if I want to”.
You forgot to count the money again for the emissions that won’t be generated and won’t have to be paid for through Kyoto.
The only people with a valid argument against CFL’s are those supporting LED. To which I say “buy CFL now, buy LED when they arrive”.
Steve: “The Left has more people, more activists, and most base support, but the Right has the money and the power.”
Not true: in this country the Left via the left leaning government has the money. It is not at all realistic for the Left to cry poor.
Bryan. National has a warchest of $5 million plus all the rich allies (Exclusive Brethern, Business NZ, corporates, media etc etc) leftwing groups have nothing like that kind of money are their disposal.
Trex: Yes, 6% of people should be represented, but they shouln’t be able to dictate to the other 94%.
Steve Withers:”It allows NZ to reduce power consumption by almost 20% in barely 3 years.”
The policy is good but the electorate is sick of government interfering in their private lives.
Steve,
I too agree about lightbulbs, but they are just handing the Nats a bat to bludgeon them with. Sorry I was on about the art of politics not the merit of the policy.
Its the tin ear thing, they have not taken any lessons from “anti-smacking” legislation, and Nats divide and conquer tactics.
BD: Depends what the turnout is. Essentially the right wins only when the total turnout of voters is low, or the enrollment rates are low.
The Greens 9% or the ACT 1% are valid votes. The whole point of an election is that all opinions that hit the thresholds are valid. Those thresholds used to be the gerrymandered electoral seats. Now they are either 5% or winning an electoral seat. The difference these days is that those opinions cannot simply be ignored like they were in the days of yore.
Parties have to compromise to win the treasury benches, but at least they get a lot closer to carrying the majority of NZ with them. Because of the nature of the minority coalitions that have been formed, the representation is actually wider. The primary party in a coalition has to reach to either side depending on where they get support.
On the whole this has allowed for much better government with fewer of the excesses of governmental stupidity that I’ve suffered through in the past.
Steve Withers:
“I see no value in voting for them [National].”
Neither do I. National is just rehashing Labour policies and promoting them slightly differently. They support an ETS – they are just delaying it to get votes. They voted for the smacking legislation with Labour and show no signs of changing it. They now support working for families, KiwiSaver… everything except the EFA. The electorate is sick of Labour, as the polls show. They just haven’t yet figured out that National won’t change anything.
There are parties that would push for change. The Family Party has great policies from a conservative perspective. Act has great policies from a liberal perspective. If people actually read the policies each party has (rather than just choosing between the almost-identical Labour and National) they could vote for change.
But it will take a lot of publicity to get people to think about these minor parties, and policy such as the broadcasting allocations is designed to ensure they stay voting for these two old parties, continually pretending to push opposite issues but actually just being the same policies painted different colours…
Steve Pierson said: “Burt. No. check my edit, which I was going to make any way (I wrote this post last night). The Left has more people, more activists, and most base support, but the Right has the money and the power. We are, after all, living in an essentially rightwing economic structure with some leftwing elements.
You’re lying again, Steve. The Labour Party has some five thousand members, max. That is all. National has some forty thousand members. I know your mathematics is dodgy, but not even you would argue that five thousand is greater than forty thousand.
The National has a four-level membership structure: national board, regional committees, electorate committees, and branches within electorates. Many electorate organisations have over a thousand members. Not a single Labour Party branch comes close to that.
The Labour Party can not, and has not, run an election campaign without the resources of the EPMU, among several other affiliated unions. The National Party has the organisational capability to run an election campaign independent of the organisations that are right-leaning. The Left does not have more activists.
The Left does not have more base support. You have just said in this post that Helen should stop critiquing polls because everybody knows that the Nats are currently more popular than Labour. National is well over 50% in the polls. Polling analysis suggests Labour’s support is softer than National’s, with at least 20% of Labour voters saying they are likely, or very likely, to change their vote before the election.
Unless you argue that every political party in Parliament, with the exception of National, is of the Left, then you’re pushing the proverbial uphill suggesting that the Left are even within coohee of the Right’s support base right now. Not that I’d put it past you to come up with such a stupid argument to advance your warped view of the world.
SP-The Left has more people, more activists, and most base support, but the Right has the money and the power.
“National has a warchest of $5 million”
Got anything to back either of those statements up?
Oh really Steve? Left wing groups have nothing at their disposal? What about the $100 million in assets that affiliated unions of the Labour Party have? What about the $100 million that the Government will spend in the twelve months before the election promoting itself? (Unless there are more scrupulous bureaucrats, as in the IRD, who withdrew a kiwisaver ad because it was too close to advocating Labour policy).
Steve P: You are saavy blogger: you know it’s all about demonstrating to your constituency that you can deliver the goods. Otherwise why do the Greens proudly boast of spending like this:
“The Buy Kiwi Made programme resulting from the 2005 Labour- Green Cooperation Agreement enters its most active phase with the launch of a $6.3 million media marketing campaign to manufacturers in July and to consumers in August. This will run through until early 2008.”
And Winnie ( yes I know he isn’t a leftie) boast like this:
“It not only deserved, but had, a representative who could get things done. Like a new harbour bridge.
A representative who can deliver.”
The left has had access to $800 billion over the last nine years to promote their viewpoint with.
[government spending over the last 8 and a half years has been only around $370 billion, and nearly half of that is transfer payments to pensioners etc. The comms budgets of departments is small relative to government spending, only $69 million last year, and nearly all of that goes on exicting things like road closures, tax return advertising and the like. Press releases make up a minute part of government spending. And announcing policies is part of being government, it's not electioneering. SP]
Skeptic. What a load of trash.
Left wing groups have nothing at their disposal?
They don’t have nothing, but they have significantly less resourcing than the right to mount proper PR and advertising campaigns, which is how opinion tends to be shaped in a modern democracy.
What about the $100 million in assets that affiliated unions of the Labour Party have?
I’d be interested to find out how you came across that $100m figure.
The only unions affiliated to the Labour Party are the EPMU, the SFWU, the Dairy Workers, the Meatworkers, the Rail and Maritime Union and a few branches of the Maritime Union – of these only the EPMU and the SFWU are large enough to have any sizeable impact and they advocate for worker-friendly policies, not blindly for a Labour Government.
In any case, I don’t know if you understand how unions operate, but each of them uses the vast, vast bulk of their money on organising workers. Their campaign and publicity budgets are a fraction of one percent of their annual revenue.
What about the $100 million that the Government will spend in the twelve months before the election promoting itself?
Seriously, this is getting tired. Are you seriously telling me that campaigns on drink driving, healthy eating and depression are Labour Party advertisements? Give me a fucking break.
Tane: You forgot the ‘It’s not OK’ campaign… I’m sure a few of the more extreme righties would see that as electioneering.
Great post, Steve. Gives the lie to the nonsense about the Standard being NZLP propaganda. I’ve also blogged to the effect that ignoring the message in the polls is not a good look.
I would have to say that Labour doesn’t always have a major advantage with people, for the simple reason that its membership goes up and down in cycles, as does National’s. National’s membership figures used to be severely inflated — anybody who bought a raffle ticket was (usually unknowingly) “enrolled” as a member, for example. Do they still do this?
But National usually has an advantage with the money, except in extreme cases like 2002, when the party isn’t doing the bosses bidding sufficiently diligently. They seem to have fixed that problem though, and it’s back to business as usual (pun intended).
PS Steve Withers, generally the undecided vote doesn’t make much difference, since it tends to split in line with the decideds.
Steve P: It would be fair to say Working For Families promises helped the Left win the 2005 election. (Yes, yes I know recent Union sponsored polls show that Kiwis have forgotten to be grateful).
$21 million dollars was budgeted for promoting WFF in the first three years $6.3 billion has been spent so far on WFF. Makes the Exclusives Brethrens $1 million look like chicken feed
Bryan, sorry but you really embarrass yourself when you use such figures in an argument. It looks like you’ve been to the Bernard Hickey school of Partisan Hackery with such a poor, selective use of figures.
In this case, you’ve mixed up actual transfer payments with an advertising budget, within a single comparison. That’s like saying that tax cuts count as part of an advertising campaign.
Next time, why not just say the $70bn or so the government spends every year makes a mockery of National’s campaign war chest? That would be equally illogical.
Embarrassing. (note: a smiley face doesn’t hide terrible logic)
And I think you’ll find much, if not all, of that advertising, was after the 2005 election.
“Bretherens” needs a posessive apostrophe, but I’ll leave it for the ‘enlightening debate’ thread.
Elaborate on the “Union sponsored polls” comment, if you will. You actually mean commissioned, and showing that people don’t want tax cuts at a cost of social services is no revelation, but it was pointed out at a good time. What did you mean by that comment though?
Bryan Spondre
The EB spending their own money legally was an assult on democracy because it had potential to effect the outcome of the election. The $800,000 spent illegally by Labour made no difference to the outcome of the electionm, but we needed the EFA because un declared additional spending is undemocratic – However we must never forget…
It’s OK when Labour do it – keep up!
Matthew: so are you saying that the promise of receiving Working For Families payments didn’t influence the outcome of the 2005 election i.e. the decision by swinging voters to vote for Labour rather than National ? Ditto the late announcement of tax free student loans shortly before the 2005 election.
If publicizing government policy isn’t political advertising why is there so much concern in government departments about the risk of being caught up in the EFA?
( The
is actually a self-righteous smirk !!!!! 
)
“And Winnie ( yes I know he isn’t a leftie) boast like this:
“It not only deserved, but had, a representative who could get things done. Like a new harbour bridge.
A representative who can deliver.’ ”
I see that allowing Winston to boast that he delivers, cost the taxpayer a mere $50 million. By Labours standard merely bacon sandwich politics instead of pork barrel politics.
Bryan has been adding these to most of his comments lately. He seems to believe it adds an illusion of “reasonableness” to his ill-conceived simian dribble.
You only need to read one or two of his “thoughts” to realise that (to paraphrase Rowan Atkinson) any attempt to engage in a serious discussion with him would be like fitting wheels to a tomato.
Of course it could just be that he’s not used to seeing words without pictures attached.
Steve, Andy
A little OT, but this CFL light issue has been discussed in this thread and it is perhaps related to the polls (or at least the way it has been handled).
All of my fixed lighting is high efficiency. It’s a no brainer. Most of my table lamps are too. I have a couple of low-wattage incandescents where they are the only thing fit for the job. I know exactly what I am doing. I don’t use indcandescents to be “indefensibly stupid”.
But seriously, banning incandescents just seems stupid. If it were true that the govt intends to ban them then it would show an apparent lack of respect for [the intelligence and free will of] voters… and I think that is where the government is failing.
[just a note: the government set efficency standards for lighting, just like it does for fridges and other electrical applicance. Any type of bulb that meets those standards is allowed to be sold. SP]