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!
The next few days have to be about the kinds of policies New Zealanders want – positive visions.
I talked to my dear Gran this week, and she likes the gold card she has, and feels like Labour wouldn’t have given it without NZF. She doesn’t like the right, but Labour haven’t enunciated a clear enough vision of the things she wants, and she’s too conservative for the Greens and some of Labour’s liberal policies are uncomfortable for her. She hasn’t made up her mind.
If Labour present a clear enough picture of the NZ they’re building in the next few days, they’ll get her vote. If not, we might be damned to another three years of purgatory.
NZ First is left?
I always cringe whenever anyone, especially from the left dignifies NZ First with the label. I think NZ First is just a radical populist party with strong xenophobic tendencies which survives largely due to Winston Peter’s charisma.
No, I don’t think NZF is left but if they were to return to Parliament they would end up supporting a Labour-led govt.
“if they were to return to Parliament they would end up supporting a Labour-led govt”
I wouldn’t bet on that. It would require Key to stand by something he stated and Winston to not be populist, both highly unlikely.
…also, remember ’96 …
If NZF returns to Parliament they will give a National-led coalition confidence and supply (assuming National get the biggest chunk of any party). Winnie will cite the Greens and the Maoris bla bla bla, and Key will state how “NZ deserves a change of Govt, and he wasn’t gunna let petty politics usurp the ‘will of the people’ ” or some garbage like that.
Rely on Winston at you peril. The guy is a joke.
“Rely on Winston at you peril”
exactly, as i say in the post, the Left can win without him and I’m not recommending tactical voting.
George
The Gold Card and the free public transport etc won’t last long under a right wing government.
So even if Labour are not the largest party, they can return to office?
A bit of deja vu really. We’ve returned to the days of FFP where it doesn’t matter if you actually win the most votes, its all down to what parties you can pile together
What an outrage.
If Labour wins the most votes, I’d respect NZ’s voice that put it that way and would never support National putting together a very frail looking government just so Key could remain PM. This is a travesty towards everything NZ stands for.
But should we expect anything less?
[learn the difference between plurality and majority - a majority can be said to be 'NZ's voice', a plurality can not. Getting the most votes is not the same thing as getting the majority of votes. Only a government with majority support has the right to govern, whether or not it includes the largest party. SP]
Just out of interest, do you get a tax payer funded incentive to publish the poll results in horse race format?
Is this one of the perks of supporting the dishonest minister of racing who did not declare donations from big business backers in his party returns?
So even if Labour are not the largest party, they can return to office?
Yes, it’s called MMP.
A bit of deja vu really. We’ve returned to the days of FFP where it doesn’t matter if you actually win the most votes, its all down to what parties you can pile together
It doesn’t matter which individual party no, it matters which grouping or coalition of parties. I know a lot of you righties are only just now coming to understand MMP, and it could be a bumpy ride, but ask your questions here, we’re here to help.
Is this one of the perks of supporting the dishonest minister of racing who did not declare donations from big business backers in his party returns?
So Burt, your own ACT party has just been found guilty of not declaring donations from big business backers in their party returns. Does this mean that you will no longer be supporting them?
Hoolian: Do really believe that the party with the most votes automatically gets to govern or are you promoting the mischief of a poor loser? Parliament is a team “game”. The team that gets the most members in their team “wins.” If National cannot persuade enough to join their team so that they get a majority they lose to the team that does. Simple. That has been so since National was in power and created MMP in the 90′s.
As the resident racing expert here, I can tell you that tipsters are never 100% especially when backing their personal favourites.
The race can be run many times before race day but the actual result can depend on multiple factors – the run of the race, track conditions, jockey’s tactics, conditioning etc.
Chances are that the first past the post may not win the race … expect a siren and a stewards’ enquiry to sort out the winner!
burt – do you ever get sick of coming here to be shown up as an idiot by people who are smarter than you?
I wonder if I can make it simple enough for Hoolian.
National, UF and ACT will work together. A vote for any of them is a vote for a National-led government.
Labour, Greens and Progressives will work together. A vote for any of them is a vote for a Labour-led government.
The MP is beholden to voters on the Maori roll (in theory). They will decide where the Maori party will go.
Yet you are trying to say the only thing that matters is whether National or Labour get more votes than the other.
Good luck with the 1987 election (although in saying that you clearly have no recollection nor understanding of FPP either).
rOb
Will I stop supporting Rodney? In short “NO’ (printed on a sign and held up in defiance of all facts, logic and reason)
You can call this a double standard if you like but it’s not. You see Rodney came clean about it. He didn’t accuse the media or making up lies, didn’t make outrageous claims about how he can clear all of this up in minutes etc. In short he did what any person who has made a mistake should do fess up and face it.
I commented a few days ago that I was disappointed that the time limit for prosecutions is so short as to be honest I would have liked to have seen Rodney get charged over this along with all other MP’s who have broken the rules. I know I’m a bit crazy wanting accountability for this sort of thing – retrospective validation is much more expedient as we know.
Burt,
that is a cop out.
Rodney got caught and pulled up for doing the same thing Winnie did after spending 8 weeks having a go at Winnie. Promoting his party as ‘honest and transparent’ when he is just like all of the others.
He may have admitted to it straight away but that doesn’t change the fact that is happened. Good on him for owning up quickly, but he is still a hypocrite.
You can call this a double standard if you like but it’s not.
Yes it is Burt. You are quite prepared to find any excuse to rationalise away ACTs dodgy behaviour, while joining in the crusade against Peters.
ACT seem to be making a habit of this dodgy dealing. In 1996 they refused to supply a breakdown of their election expenses to the Electoral Commission. They were taken to court a number of times, ending on 11 June 1999 with the Court of Appeal Case CA149/98, where ACT were found to be in breach of their obligations (hat tip jaymam). What were they trying to hide Burt? Do you know? Do you care?
yl
So if Rodney did the same thing Winston then either both are guilty or both are not ?
One still has the support of the Labour-led govt so he can’t be guilty can he .
The one who is not part of the Labour-led govt suddenly gets shouted about here on the standard and the other… well it’s OK because he’s keeping the corrupt govt together.
Like I said – if one is guilty then both are – should we charge them both or let them both off because it’s not expedient to charge Winston?
Was the law confusing and others were doing it as well so It’s OK (childish response as used by Labour in 2005/2006) or should they both be charged?
I’d be happy to see Rodney charged over this, find one single link in the entire blog world where I support politicians being let of charges because it rocks the boat to charge them and I’ll take the cop-out comment on the chin, otherwise you owe me an apology because I don’t accept MP’s breaking the law as long as it’s MP I otherwise support unlike all you Labour-led govt supporters.
rOb
You still supporting Winston? Still trying to find examples where others have done similar things so you can say : Others did it too !
rOb
I said I would have rather seen Rodney charged over this – please explain how that is finding an excuse. Might pay to keep the words short so roger nome can understand.
Goodness Burt, slow down, pick one single line of spin and stick to it.
find one single link in the entire blog world where I support politicians being let of charges because it rocks the boat to charge them
Right here in this thread Burt. You are still supporting ACT despite their repeated dodgy behaviour. Despite all your wittering that they should be charged (knowing full well that they can’t be, as the legal limits have expired), you are personally letting them of charges by giving them your support.
Oh and speaking of letting off charges – should Key be charged with misleading parliament over his Tranzrail holdings? If not, why not?
Burt,
they are both guilty, they should both be held accountable. This 6 months ruling is rubbish.
They both didn’t declare donations they both need to be held accountable.
My point is that Rodney spent 8 weeks tearing into Winnie for something he was guilty of himself. He should have looked at his own party before having ago at anothers.
This chip you have about him getting off because it is a labour led government is tiresome.
rOb
How many times rOb… All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
All MP’s who break the law should be charged, police should not have discretion when it comes to the law makers breaking the laws because it presents a situation where justice can not be seen to be done….
Burt,
that is unnecessary copy and pasting. You should try and make your point in a more concise way, after all, it is the sign of a good debater
You know, isn’t it great that it now looks like we could possibly get another sensible government this term without Winston?
yl
rOb supports retrospective validation yet wants to see National held to account in ways he would not demand of Labour. I have been over this stuff again and again with him and he can’t understand that my position is not based on which party we are talking about. He deserved that cut-n-paste. Sorry if it bothered you.
haha burt,
it didn’t both me, it is just one more extra scroll of the mouse wheel.
i wont ask you to catch me up on yours and Robs battle, but you could respond to mine and robs comments above.
I just find it odd that you talk about not condoning MP’s breaking the law, yet you will still support Rodney (who broke the law) by way of your vote.
I just find it odd that you talk about not condoning MP’s breaking the law, yet you will still support Rodney (who broke the law) by way of your vote.
I was away Burt, but there you go, yl has said it neatly there.
Unless you’re prepared to withdraw your vote from Rodney, all your (repeated) talk about accountability is just that – (repeated) talk.
yl/rOb
It’s quite simple, I don’t think govt should be in the business of picking winners and losers in our economy. Targeted tax breaks & tax payer funded prize pools for the racing industry to help them out while F&P close down their manufacturing plant for example. If it’s good enough to rescue one industry then it’s good enough to rescue them all. ( Perhaps F&P should have made secret donations to Winston)
When I hear about things like Winston/Rodney my first response is “what did they do will they be punished’. Now if Rodney voted in parliament to retrospectively validate his rent situation then he would certainly loose my vote. The fact he cannot be charged because of the time limit is something I cannot change, as much as I would like to but at least (so far) he has not been self serving enough to cover his deeds with an extremely unconstitutional misuse of parliamentary powers.
rOb
Can’t defend the indefensible rOb, I though you had already learned that.
Do you think Winston will be charged or do you think the Police will say “not in the public interest”?
Now if Rodney voted in parliament to retrospectively validate his rent situation then he would certainly loose my vote.
This is getting weaker and weaker Burt. So now the only misdeeds that count are the ones covered by retrospective validation? That would be none of them, since that validation applied to parliamentary services spending, not any of the parties.
And anything else seems to be Ok with you. No matter how often Rodney and ACT break the rules you’re still going to condone it by voting for them. How can you Burt? What about your principles? Or are they all just talk?
rOb
Waht about my principles…. That is rich comming from you who misquotes Rodney to make it look like he is saying something really really bad when he was actualy describing the Labour party view point.
Look, if he broke the law he should be charged – what part of that can you not understand ? I don’t give a toss what party is involved the rules are the rules – I wish you would see it the same way rather than project your partisan “anything goes if it’s my party” perspective onto me.
That is rich comming from you who misquotes Rodney
Ahhh – what?
Look, if he broke the law he should be charged – what part of that can you not understand ?
The part where you’re still planning to vote for him. You hide behind “he should be charged” when you know full well that he can’t be. And then you condone his behaviour by voting for him. You are supporting a scoundrel Burt, and you know it full well.
But we’re going round in circles here, so unless you have something new to add, ttfn.
rOb
We all do “misdeeds” rOb, hell when I was younger I even smoked the ocasional joint… Ohhhhh – ahhhhhh. The issue is how we deal with misdeeds.
I can’t make the Police not wave the “not in the public interest” get out of jail free card – but I can protest against MP’s who wave it for themself rather than face the juduciary. If Rodney gets into power and kills off a court case because it is not expedient then he will join my list of self serving basket case power at any price MP’s.
Give up rOb, you haven’t a leg to stand on. You are on record supporting RV because it was expedient. I’m on record saying Rodney should have been charged – we both have not changed our preferences but at least I have not sold out to being so partisan I can’t see when I’m living a double standard.
burt,
sorry i still dont understand how you can condone Rodney by choosing to vote for him.
yet say that you dont condone any MP’s breaking the law.
You are condoning Rodney by voting for him.
burt,
i see you are living a double standard because you say that you dont condone mp’s breaking the law but will then vote for someone that has been caught breaking the law.
that is a double standard
yl
There are (IMHO) no MP’s who have not abused the electoral funding laws. This is why retrospective validations were passed. The status quo was more important for the standing govt than accountability for the laws they wrote.
If the Labour-led govt had not burried 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)
Parliament has taken the Monty Python world view of reducing crime. ‘The only way to bring the crime rate down is to reduce the number of offences’. IE: We didn’t break the law becasue we validated our actions which alledgedly broke it.
Show me an MP who you can assure me has never breached the electoral funding laws and they will get my vote. Remember though – the 14 years prior to 2006 are validated so we can’t tell what went on can we. (thanks Labour).