Written By: - Date published: 10:26 pm, October 27th, 2008 - 70 comments
Categories: election 2008, polls -
Tags:
Here are the results of the last four polls, released over the past four days. I’ve presented them in number of seats won and grouped the parties into Left and Right based on these facts: ACT is locked with National as the Progressives are with Labour, the Greens won’t go with National, UF won’t go with Labour, and no-one seriously believes the Maori Party would go with National. I’ve also assumed the Maori Party will win all seven Maori seats, which I think is likely now that the fear of them going with National is dissipating. As you can see, it’s bloody close (if you can’t make out the individual graphics, they’re wee racehorses)
TV3/TNS 23rd Oct
Roy Morgan 24th Oct
It’s worth noting that the Left is winning in half the polls without NZF returning to Parliament in any of them. If NZF were to pick up a couple of percent and break 5%, they would bring 6 or more seats for the Left and that would knock the Right out of contention. That said, the Left can win without them and, while NZF is polling well below 5%, tactical voting would be ill-advised.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Burt,
so what you are saying is that you will vote Rodney because he has broken the law, just not as badly as the others?
Burt,
“If the Labour-led govt had not burried [sic] 14 years of illegal activity to get the PM out of a court case we might have had a chance to actually audit and charge them. (actually enforce accountability)”
what do you mean? What illegal activity?
yl
No, these words you try and put in my mouth do not fit.
I’ll vote for ACT because I like their policies. If Rodney has broken the law he should be charged. ACT would carry on without Rodney just as Labour would carry on without Helen Clark. Just as National will without John Key.
Like I said, if Rodney (or ACT) abused the powers of parliament to get out of a court case then ACT (and Rodney) would loose my vote until such time as all the people who voted in such a self serving manner had departed the party.
Rodney fessed up… Never ever seen that sort of integrity from Labour.
What illegal activity? – Are you new to NZ or are you now taking the approach that there was nothing illegal because it was validated using the unconventional power of the legislature acting as the judiciary? (big no no in the Westminster system – but acceptable to Labour supporters if it keeps Labour in govt)
burt,
it blows me away that you can sit there and throw out corruption comments, yet will sit there and say that your own party is fine.
I agree that we should vote of policies rather than people. So why do you sit there slagging of Helen Clark?
You have too many double standards burt.
Burt don’t waste you time – what seems to be lost in the the whole debate is that all Rodney would be found guilty of is getting some free office space from Bob Jones – whoopee, I say good on any political party who can get something such as this for free and not delve into the public purse.
yl
Here is a clue: What did Helen Clark vote for in 2006?
Another clue: Darnton vs [????] (pick the missing name)
If the Labour-led govt had not burried 14 years of illegal activity to get the PM out of a court case
Ohhh bullshit, Not even ACT voted for that court case to proceed Burt, as you well know.
Show me an MP who you can assure me has never breached the electoral funding laws and they will get my vote.
Jim Anderton. Are you going to vote for him Burt?
rOb
Wrong. He may not have broken them in 2005 but then with a party of one it would be pretty hard to break them.
Before that… there are multiple instances of abuse of parliaments resources. 1,000 envelopes franked in a parliament franking machine for his wife’s local council campaign. His wife driving around in his self drive ministerial car with her local council campaign signs on it…. Two examples of stuff recently in breach of the EFA.
burt,
you seemed to have ignored my post.
you justifying your double standards intrigues me.
rOb
You didn’t answer what you think will happen to Winston re the police outcome due this week?
Also, if Labour win in 2 weeks do you think they will shut down all EFA complaints by validating all actions because the law of common sense applies?
If they do will you be proud that we will now have 17 years of uncontrolled spending that political parties cannot be held to account for?
yl
See: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/horse-racing/#comment-98492
No double standard, that is for partisan people who support corruption. Rodney did not declare a “gift”. (bad and should be charged) However he did not hide actual hard cash. He did not steal the office costs from tax payers. He has not voted to make accepting gifts legal… Get some perspective.
BTW: Has Helen said Winston can keep the money he received becasue he needs to hand all gifts over to parliament unless the PM expressly says he can keep them?
Goodness Burt, you’re an expert on the sins Jim Anderton. Whoda thunk. Which only makes it all the more mysterious to me that you’re playing “the others did it too” defense in condoning (by voting for them) the sins of Rodney Hide and ACT.
You didn’t answer what you think will happen to Winston re the police outcome due this week?
No idea Burt. But since he’s been cleared by the SFO and the other inquiry that I can’t be bothered to look up, I’d say it’s entirely likely that he’ll be cleared by the police too.
Anyway Burt, gotta go. Just remember to tell yourself when you cast your vote for Rodney, that it’s Ok, because the others did it too…
rOb
Oh dear, you are mocking me for acting a tiny bit like yourself. You must feel proud that I appear to be joining you in the sewer of partisan apologists.
But I’m not so don’t pat yourself on the back just yet – you have not converted me to being a big supporter of the status quo – not yet.
If Rodney votes for RV over this rent and I still defend his integrity then I will have joined you at the bottom of the apologist pit. Till then….
burt,
again you are just justifying the situation because it is for the party you support.
The fact that it was office space instead of cash makes no difference. We operate under a law that says that political parties need to declare donations (whether they are cash or not).
If you get a cow as payment for a job, you still have to pay tax on the cow. The fact that it was office space means nothing.
and again, whether he voted for or against is not the case. He has to live within the law whether he agrees with it or not
Burt,
“If Rodney votes for RV over this rent and I still defend his integrity”
you are admitting to defending Rodney’s integrity. Yet you say that you dont condone any MP’s breaking the law. And you admit that rodney broke the law.
this is why the words burt and double standards keep appearing.
Hi there,
I can’t link to the pattern of (mis) behaving post. it goes all gobbledygook on me.
yl
Are you voting for Labour, Green’s, NZ1, Jolly Jim or Peter Dunne?
If so you are voting for a party that voted to give itself a get out of jail free card…
Don’t lecture me on double standards while you are supporting any of these parties, you have no moral high ground. The best you can do is be like rOb and laugh at me for being a little bit partisan while you have made a committment to being an apologist.
yl
Did you read Burt’s comment ?
Burt’s words are very clear..
“If Rodney votes for RV over this rent and I still defend his integrity then I will have joined you at the bottom of the apologist pit.”
You then suggest Burt is admitting to defending Rodney’s integrity, this is patently absurd.
hs
Yes the bit where I say “he should be charged” is being ignored. Probably because MP’s being charged is something Labour supporters can’t bring themselves to think of. Must not happen – not in the public interest. Status quo is more important than accountability…. Then the dim-bulbs think they have the high ground. Go figure.
hs,
burt used the word still in that sentence.
As in, if i still defend Rodney after… because he uses the word still it implies that he is currently defending his integrity.
burt,
i am not the one saying that i will not condone mp’s that break the law, you are. When in actual fact you are because it suits who you want to vote for
that is why you have double standards
burt,
“Don’t lecture me on double standards while you are supporting any of these parties, you have no moral high ground. The best you can do is be like rOb and laugh at me for being a little bit partisan while you have made a committment [sic] to being an apologist.”
so if i say i vote national then i can lecture you on double standards
Burt – it is indeed the twilight zone.
What disturbs me most about politics in NZ is that many people have their “side” who they’ll back no matter what.
In my opinion all politicians should be treated with a very large dollop of suspicion.
hs,
‘What disturbs me most about politics in NZ is that many people have their “side’ who they’ll back no matter what’
I agree, we see this happening in the blogs all the time
Democracy is rule by the majority – not the majority cut up into smaller pieces.
Oh, crap guys, it’s all over. Hoolian has defined Democracy to suit himself, I’ve got no answer to that. Does any one else?
Any other Edicts you’d like to Inform us of, your worthiness?
So, Hoolian. According to your definition, if National only gets a plurality, not a majority, they won’t have the automatic right to rule.
yl
That would be the integrity that said – Yes we got it wrong…. Remember that way back up thread… Rodney admitted ACT had made a stuff up – no “NO” signs and no accusation of media beatup etc….
So yes I’m defending his integrity that he can admit a mistake. I know Labour never admit anything so perhaps you can’t understand how I see this. There was no cover up and no additional lies to pretend it never happened. He stopped digging and didn’t blame everybody else for his stuff up. He didn’t scream it’s unfair because others did it too.
Nothing Rodney has done even comes close to Winston’s constant BS claims and lies. But all that aside – in a perfect world they would both be charged.
Burt,
thanks for clearing up that ‘still’ comment. I read it differently the first time, i can see where you are coming from now.
so you are not pissed about Winnie breaking the law.
you just don’t believe that he didn’t know?
yl
Compare Winston’s behaviour vs Rodney’s behaviour. You guess which one had something to hide. (no pun intended)
Do you think Labour knew about ACT’s rent debacle and sat on the info for 6 months because they had a vested interest in keeping it quiet ?
Now get digging into ACT’s accounts, see if you can find secret donors who have received special policy considerations. If you can I’ll join you marching on parliament to get them sacked before they retrospectively validate themselves and I’ll give my vote to the Maori party.
haha burt,
we just seem to be looking at things from two difference sides of the fence.
You think the labour party personally waited for 6 months before saying anything,
who’s to say that Rodney didnt know and was waiting 6 months himself.
like HS said earlier, we tend to back our own team
Are you voting for Labour, Green’s, NZ1, Jolly Jim or Peter Dunne? If so you are voting for a party that voted to give itself a get out of jail free card
You continue to wilfully lie about this Burt. Disappointing. No party got a get out of jail free card on anything.
The best you can do is be like rOb and laugh at me for being a little bit partisan
“A little bit partisan” – that’s cute! Burt, you’re as partisan as any here. You have spent years viciously attacking the misdeeds of politicians on the left, while ignoring National (“not my party”) and now ACT (“others did it too!”). So let’s have an end to your attempts to claim that you want to hold all politicians to the same standards, because clearly you do not.
burt – You must be glad that the EFA extends the period in which prosecutions can be brought against politicans and has harsher penalties.
thought we were discussing horse racing, opps wrong page
rOb
I’m not defending Rodney – what part of “he should have been charged” are you missing?
I’m not saying it was OK, I’m not saying the right thing to do was ignore it because it’s not in ACT’s best interest to do anything…..
Wake up rOb – I’m not going to sink to your level of apologist and you are not going to drag me down there to wallow with you.
QtR
Yes and No. Yes becasue the provisions are there – No because they are not likely to ever be used in a court of law.
What do you think about only warnings being given to the authors of the law who must have understood it – but flout it?
What do you think about only warnings being given to the MP’s that voted to enact the law and therefore must have understood it – but flout it?
What is the point of having laws when they are not enforced ?
Not even the authors or the MP’s that voted to enact the EFA are expected to follow it – it is meaningless and crooked, an assult on democracy.