Written By: - Date published: 9:36 am, December 17th, 2007 - 91 comments
Categories: polls -
Tags: polls
From The Dom:
A One News Colmar Brunton poll last night has National on 54 per cent, 19 points clear of Labour. A Three News TNS poll has National with a slimmer lead – 51 to 36 – but still well ahead.
Well I doubt they enjoy being behind but this can hardly be a surprise for Labour – with The Herald waging war over the EFB as well as continued fallout from a variety of issues. So National’s looking to govern alone but would anyone really want them to?
It seems to me that their leader, for all his style, is still a policy lightweight – having handed off all of the hard stuff stuff to Bill. Key’s job of late has seemed to consist mainly of tours around the country smiling for photo-ops, shaking hands, and kissing babies, broken up only by the demands of a staring role in a Hollywood-style promotional video, short on substance and unanimously panned by the media.
I suppose he’s thinking ‘stick with what you’re good at’ but I’m not sure the electorate will fall for it forever – particularly as scrutiny is brought to bear as the election approaches.
Whenever the Nats have released policy this year it’s been a fiasco and the public has been left with the uneasy feeling that there may be more going on behind closed doors than Key is letting on. English has mused about cuts to super, Ryall accidently let the cat out of the bag on uncapping GPs’ fees, and Key has been evasive over his policy on asset sales.
Given National’s sustained series of policy gaffes so far I’m betting that Labour’s not writing off its chances just yet.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“The EFB is Labours gift to National that will keep on giving. It has already produced a 10% swing in polling and it has not even come into effect yet. The law is going to be a core election year issue, third party campaigns will be mounted against this (if National are smart) and for “freedom of speech”.”
Problem is that the EFB does not affect the lives of ordinary people (you know, genuine middle New Zealand, not the Remuera Rent-A-Mob that consititutes the major opposition to the bill). Very few people have the resources to chuck $12,000 at a political party. Once the media hysteria dies down, the EFB will be seen as yesterday’s issue.
DS – There may not be all that many individuals that could spend more than the threshold, but there are plenty of groups or organisations that do, and that the people of ‘middle New Zealand’ respect.
e.g. Sensible Sentencing Trust, IMVDA, Invercargill City Council for a small sample.
You and Tane can witter on all you like about how “free speech is not affected” but I think that practice, arrests, and court cases will prove you wrong. NZ’ers are not idiots, and have obviously not fallen for the ‘evil EB’ tornado spin effort from Teh Party.
Rob – overwhelming majority of parties? Have they redefined overwhelming lately? Perhaps you could instead report on the votes for/against the EFB in parliament instead? After all the MP’s are the representatives, not the parties.
Have they redefined overwhelming lately?
Nope.
the polls don’t look good for Labour but the sample size was so small it’s hard to see beyond general trends – I just do not believe the Greens will really poll below 5% come a real election, for example
overwhelm
“¢ verb 1 submerge beneath a huge mass. 2 defeat completely; overpower. 3 have a strong emotional effect on.
So, which were you going for?
Ayes 65
New Zealand Labour 49
New Zealand First 7
Green Party 6
United Future 2
Progressive 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 48
MÄÂori Party 4
ACT New Zealand 2
Independents: Copeland, Field
Overwhelming? Yeah Right.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481042&pnum=0
5 parties in favour, 2 parties opposed, 1 party (Maori) undecided (in favour of the principle, some issues with this particular drafting). 5 vs 2 is an overwhelming majority of parties, which was exactly what I said.
Yes ROb, well done. You have devised a method of counting which gives Gordon Copeland the same value as the Labour Party. Well done, very clever.
Yes ROb, well done. You have devised a method of counting which gives Gordon Copeland the same value as the Labour Party. Well done, very clever.
Billy, I think you’ll find that this way of counting was “devised” by The Herald, and doesn’t feature Copeland anywhere.
Ha ha rob – in your universe perhaps.
The results that I quoted (from Hansard) shows Maori voting with the Nats, so thats 5-3. Progressives is just Jimbo – so by the same logic the two independents could count as 2 parties, so thats 5-5. Draw.
Anyway, the number you need to categorise is 65-56. Since when do we decide legislation on a party count? rying to focus on party support is mere sophistry.
Trying to spin this nasty legislation as having a cloak of widespread consensus isn’t to going to work.
You really are determined to be shown to be technically but pointlessly correct about this, aren’t you R0b. My bad. Substitute “Jim Anderton’s Prgressive Party” or “Act New Zealand” for “Gordon Copeland” then. The point is the same: a system of counting that places the same weight on one MP as it does on 49 is really not very helpful for determining the support on an issue.
The results that I quoted (from Hansard) shows Maori voting with the Nats, so thats 5-3.
Fine, count Maori with the “no”, I don’t mind (though their piece in The Herald shows that they support the principle of the EFB).
Progressives is just Jimbo
And Act is Just Rodney and Heather – so?
so by the same logic the two independents could count
Sorry no, I didn’t chose the party leaders, The Herald did. Even counting Maori as “no”, it is 5 v 3, and overwhelming majority of parties in favour of the EFB, which is exactly what I said.
“You really are determined to be shown to be technically but pointlessly correct about this, aren’t you R0b.”
Billy – say rather that you are determined to show me wrong but can’t. As to whether or not it’s pointless – well if its pointless why are you arguing with me?
I accept you are right. I just think the fact you have given does nothing to prove the point you have made. As such, it is without point. Pointless.
I often argue poinltess points. I am quite small minded like that.
DS –
“Problem is that the EFB does not affect the lives of ordinary people (you know, genuine middle New Zealand, not the Remuera Rent-A-Mob that consititutes the major opposition to the bill). Very few people have the resources to chuck $12,000 at a political party. Once the media hysteria dies down, the EFB will be seen as yesterday’s issue.”
Alot of people drink beer, stubbies cost $15 a dozen. If ordinary people can afford the price of a dozen Lion Red stubbies this law can affect them.
Maybe 10,000 people could be got together on this EFB thing. Imagine how it would look to have a Labour government persecuting them for deciding to spend less than the cost of one dozen stubbies advocating against this law. Even the Sensible Sentencing Trust with 4000 (?) members each having the discretion to spend the equivalent of 2 dozen each – does not qualify them as Remuera’s elite. Breaking the law, could cost ordinary people practically nothing.
When a law says it is illegal if for thousands of people to forgoe a few beers and advocate for their ideas that law is an ass.
r0b – you got the pseudonym
Unaha – “When a law says it is illegal if for thousands of people to forgoe a few beers and advocate for their ideas that law is an ass.”
Notice how contorted you have to get to invent a situation where this effects ordinary people? If you could assemble 10,000 people into one organisation you’d have one of the largest political parties in the country!
r0b – you got the pseudonym
I’m an Iain Banks fan – Consider Phlebas is one of my faves.
you got the pseudonym
I suppose you would say the book is worth reading? How would you describe it? (I’ve never read anything by Banks)
Tane:
“The Electoral Finance Bill does not restrict speech, it restricts spending.”
The intent of the law may be to restrict spending rather than speech, but the limits it puts on some people are quite frankly absurd. It’s absurd that a lobbt group would overspend by sending one nationwide letter to every household, and to pretend otherwise is either just party hackery or else a deep and distinct nonchalance towards democracy.
“National’s policy in key areas such as health, education, work rights, superannuation, WFF and privatisation is still unclear and deliberately so, and they’ve admitted as much by saying they won’t release policy in case Labour ‘steals it’.”
Well, it wouldn’t exactly be the first time Labour has done so, would it?
DS says: ” Very few people have the resources to chuck $12,000 at a political party.”
Hmm, as a left voter (please do not confuse me with a Labour/Greens supporter though – they give us left-wingers a bad name) and as someone in the lower middle class, this affects a campaign that I and others in an incorporation that I am a member of, from undertaking a public education campaign next year on an election issue. the campaign would have pointed toward labour policies incidentally. The hassles of compliance are such that it is no longer a viable programme – “common sense” says that we should give up on our exercise of free speech…
Pesky tags:
r0b – you got the pseudonym
I’m an Iain Banks fan – Consider Phlebas is one of my faves.
Dean – “it’s absurd that a lobbt group would overspend by sending one nationwide letter to every household”
Dean, can you recall any time in any election ever that a lobby group sent a letter to every household in NZ? Genuine inquiry – I want to know – I don’t remember it happening…
Sam – The hassles of compliance are such that it is no longer a viable programme
You were going to undertake a large public education campaign, but it’s too much hassle to register? That seems – odd. Or, perhaps there are compliance costs that I don’t know about – what are the compliance costs?
I read that ‘Wasp Factory’. A very disturbing little read.
“I read that ‘Wasp Factory’. A very disturbing little read.”
No disagreement there. Banks can be a very unsettling author.
Legal fees to determine “common Sense”, also, auditors, a finacial agents’ time spent on compliance trails, etc. You have to realise that these things affect the smaller people that struggle to make themselves heard at all on a National level without making it even more difficult… Also, funding would have relied on commercial sponsorship from related industries, for the materials used. We just would not have had the time resources, and expertise to deal with the compliance side… and then, there is the small matter of who exactly is going to take the risk if we get something wrong…
Sam, some of that list seems plausible, and some does not. If you’re spending over $12,000 you need to register with the Electoral Commission (not difficult), and you need to keep your spending below $120,000. Keeping your own accounts in order and knowing what you’re spending is something I assume that you would be doing anyway.
I admit that I’m not an expert at this, since I have never attempted anything similar, but it seems to me that much of what you list is either stuff you would be doing anyway, or based on an alarmist interpretation of the EFB (‘Legal fees to determine “common Sense”’ ?).
“So National’s looking to govern alone but would anyone really want them to?”
What a dumb queston, have you seen the poll results mate?
What a dumb queston, have you seen the poll results mate?
Nick, before accusing people of being dumb you should probably look further up the thread and you’ll see this issue’s already been discussed in detail.
It’s a bit quiet here tonight. You lefties all crying in your chardonnay?
Billy – it’s running up to xmas, bro.
Great poll result.
Hey Billy – yeah its drinking to excess and socialising season! I’m only taking it easy tonight coz Sunday was a bit of a long day.
Hopefully after tomorrow and the EFB suicide pact we will all be able to relax and take it easy for a few weeks. There probably won’t be any ‘John Key Sux’ posts here for a while so maybe we can all sing Kumbaya or something?
Or post links to random funny youtube videos or something.
Even partisan bloggers (of all types) need to take a break sometime eh?
I don’t know if you’re taking the piss or not DS but if you’re not I agree (well maybe except the kumbaya bit…)
Sounds a lot like you’re crying uncle there, TDS
Just sayin’.
have a good one.
Even partisan bloggers (of all types) need to take a break sometime eh?
TDS please speak for yourself. These left-wingers and Labour minions deserve to be hammered day after day without respite
))
I loved the “wasp factory”
So Mike, has Robinsod been put out to pasture?