web analytics
The Standard

Trendy polls

Written By: - Date published: 7:21 am, June 11th, 2012 - 120 comments
Categories: polls - Tags: , , ,

No need to get too excited about polls, especially more than two years out from the election, but the last three have all been good for the Left.

The Roy Morgan on 18th May had National down 2.5% to 44.5%, Labour up 1.5% to 30% and The Greens unchanged at 15%.

The One News poll on 4th June had National down 4% to 47%, Labour up 4% to 33% and The Greens up 2% to 13%.

And yesterday the 3 News / Reid poll had National down 4% to 45.8%, Labour up 3.8 % to 33.2% and The Greens up 0.3% to 14.4%. The full results, courtesy of Curia, are:

National 45.8% (-4.0%)
Labour 33.2% (+3.8%)
Green 14.4% (+0.3%)
ACT 0.5% (+0.3%)
Maori 1.4% (-0.2%)
United Future 0.0% (nc)
Mana 0.3% (-0.6%)
NZ First 2.8% (+0.5%)
Conservative 1.1% (nc)

On Kiwiblog DPF tells the Nat faithful not to panic, it’s the trend that matters.  But with the last three polls all leaking support from National the recent trend is pretty robust.  Good for the Left!

I’d like to be able to point you at some running averages for a proper look at what’s going on, but Pundit’s poll of polls is stuck on 30th of April, and Curia’s is frozen eight days earlier than that.  Not that I like to complain about folk who provide information on the interwebs for free (I know how annoying that can be!), but a month is a long time in politics folks, and the current figures have moved on…

120 comments on “Trendy polls”

  1. The Dim Post has a compilation of polling results and have graphed a trend.  Latest result is here.  The trend is unmistakable.

    Farrar is really spinning things by suggesting the worst is over.  Support does not switch immediately.  Many Kiwis tend to have a think about things before declaring a change.

    • Ben Clark 1.1

      The updated (and permanent) one is here.
      (Not incredibly different, but will change as new polls come in).

      • Ben Clark 1.1.1

        There’s also a more recent Morgan Poll (30 May).
        National down 0.5%, Labour up 0.5% – no great change, but more trend confirming.

        Probably more interesting is the “Government Confidence Rating” – which has fallen sharply in teh last 2-3 months to be at a similar level to just before the 2008 election…

  2. The trends are certainly there – in poll results and National stuff ups. It’s time for National to openly address issues and regain confidence, or it’s going to be a hard couple of years.

    Farrar is right to an extent, one poll taken before the fix-up is not calamatous, but the overall signs are starting to look shaky.

    National slipping up, sliding down.

    • Um Pete the stuff ups do not help but the basic problem is that the whole premise of this National Government, that it was going tobe Helen Clark’s Labour Government but without the lightbulb ban and with a tax cut, has shown to be a lie.

      This is another typical small minded vicious doctrinaire support our mates National Government and this is becoming increasing clear. Unless it backs off asset sales it is terminal.

      You should put your considerable output towards saving UF. It is currently polling 0.0%. Lecturing the left on what it is doing wrong is kinda weird given the abject failure that is United Future.

      • Rob 2.1.1

        No one wanted another Helen Clark government, thinking they did means you have learnt nothing.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1

          Yeah Rob some people were really bitter about being forced to use efficient light bulbs.  Interestingly the same people are totally indifferent to the thought of eugenics, probably because this is only for poor people.

        • Dr Terry 2.1.1.2

          So sorry to disappoint you Rob – I wanted a Helen Clark government, which means I have upset your doctrinaire statement (even if I am the only one, which I very much doubt). I suspect that what you mean is that YOU did not want her government. Take care over spurious generalisations like this.

          • Olwyn 2.1.1.2.1

            + Dr Terry. In the 2008 election, after almost three years of relentless battering by right wing press acolytes, and a vicious oxygen-sucking attack on Peters that coincided with the campaign, Labour got 34% of the vote. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think Labour have polled so high since. Helen Clark’s government lasted for nine years, and was not an unpopular government overall. In fact, she continued to feature in the preferred PM polls for years after she went to work for the UN, and the right seem to remain a bit scared of her, given the “phone call from New York” meme that they continue to trot out.

          • Vicky32 2.1.1.2.2

            I wanted a Helen Clark government………………………(even if I am the only one, which I very much doubt).

            There is at least one other, that is, me, and I am sure we two are not the only ones!

            • Jilly Bee 2.1.1.2.2.1

              Me too.

              • Rob

                Yeah , lets bring back Judith Kirk , the guy from Te Atatu and the dude in prison, yeah. That was all great stuff. 

                • felix

                  You actually make mickysavage’s point for him here Rob, although I don’t expect you realise it.

                  Key in ’08 campaigned on a change of face, not a change in policy.

        • mike 2.1.1.3

          Rob said ‘no one wanted another Helen Clark government. I wanted another Helen Clark government and so did the hundreds of thousands of other New Zealanders who voted for it. You may be a ‘no one’ Rob, but don’t judge everyone by your own airhead standards

      • Pete George 2.1.2

        The future of the country is probably going to be far more reliant on “the left” – Labour (which is more centre than left) and Greens, than it is in UF, hence my interest in what they are doing and what they may do. I’ve voted more for them in the past than for UF.

        Or are you suggesting that anyone how doesn’t show current subservience to a party shouldn’t comment on that party? Can you please clarify what you mean.

        • bbfloyd 2.1.2.1

          reading from the reactionary conservative playbook again pete….. you are getting boringly predictable….

          never mind… keep it up…. at least i can have some fun lampooning you……which is all that comment was good for….

  3. ScottGN 3

    The other delightful trend of course is the increasing likelihood that the Member for Ohariu will be totally irrelevant to the outcome of the next election.

    • Dunne increased his Ohariu majority last election. And he is more relevant in the current term Government than the last.

      Does that delight you?

      • Jackal 3.1.1

        I think what ScottGN is hinting at is the fact that the recent poll results and projected seats are based on no change in electorate seats. However a change in the party vote will also be reflected in the electorate vote. This will change the seat allocation considerably.

        UnitedFuture just polled 0% again and it’s unlikely that Peter Dunne will retain Ohariu, who won by only 1,392 votes. Another five seats were won by the Nats over Labour by less than this margin (by 9 votes for Balls-up Benefits). If we take the percentage shift and apply it to the amount of electorate votes, Labour would win all of these seats.

        National 52
        Labour 48
        Green 18
        ACT 1
        Maori 3
        Mana 1
        Total 123

        However the trend is showing NZF will also be in the picture @ 7.8% which would give them around 10 seats. It could be that Labour NZF form a coalition and leave the Greens out in the cold again. So although the trend is good, personally I’m not celebrating anything yet.

        • weka 3.1.1.1

          ” It could be that Labour NZF form a coalition and leave the Greens out in the cold again”
           
          That concerns me too. It would be really stupid of Labour though.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

            But, going on past performance, probable.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Sad really. Still it would be good for the Greens eventually, assuming they can keep their eye on the long game.

              • Colonial Viper

                If Labour want to govern for 3 terms, they need to bring the Greens onboard from term 1.

                • weka

                  Yep.

                • Bob

                  If Labour want to govern for more than ONE term they would be best to stay as far away from the Greens as possible! Have you seen what the Greens have done to the Labor Government in Australia?!?

                  • Murray Olsen

                    Yeah I have. They’ve given it some backbone.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Nope, they need to get closer to the Greens and start acting like a party of the left rather than a party of the right.

          • felix 3.1.1.1.2

            People will vote for Winston if they think Labour/Green can’t make it.

            Up to Labour and the Greens to make sure Winston isn’t needed really.

            • jack 3.1.1.1.2.1

              I’m voting Winston in the hopes that Labour and Winston do form a coalition. Both are center , Winston being more to the right. A lot will determine what Shearer does in these two years. He got off to a weak start but it was National who screwed up (thank God, they’re true colours are starting to show). I think the Greens are too far to the left especially with a recession. Last thing we need are tax increases with the exception of the top 10 percent income earners. I like what Winston says about the ETS.. it’s a wall street gimick to make money.

          • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.3

            “That concerns me too. It would be really stupid of Labour though.”

            Labour are forced to play the hand they’re dealt. If the choice is make a coalition with NZF, or see NZF go with National, what would you prefer?

            • Matthew Hooton 3.1.1.1.3.1

              If I may, I would like to answer that question put another way. If I were ever asked whether I would prefer National deal with NZ1 or see NZ1 deal with Labour instead, I would always choose the latter. Not only is giving that man political power unconscionable, any government he is part of will always fail politically and do reputational harm to the larger party for many years. Just ask Jim Bolger and Helen Clark.

              • Pascal's bookie

                I’d like to see the argument that it was Peters who damaged National’s reputation post Bolger fleshed out a bit.

              • ad

                +1 to that. Peters resigning over the Wellington airport sale was consistent with his positioning at that time. But going with Bolger instead of Clark – that’s a disgrace that none should forget.

              • Populuxe1

                Really, Matthew? Because if you ask Jim he’d probably tell you it was Jenny’as Brutus, not Winston, who brought down the Fourth National Government, and as for Helen, the reality is that 2008 was pretty much the end of the natural life cycle of her government – much as I liked it, it jumped the shark eventually. Winston had very little to do with that.

                • Populuxe1

                  Does the fact that Matthew Hooton has been banned from the Beehive precinct indicate that, if anything, giving political power to THAT man is unconscionable, as he has a tendency to fail in ways that leave the main party scrabbling for damage control for years…?

            • weka 3.1.1.1.3.2

              Lanth, I would prefer that Labour had the guts to stand on the left and remember who its natural allies really are. If anyone in Labour still thinks that that is Peters, then god help us.
               
              But the point wasn’t what if NZF could choose between Labour or National, it was if Labour could choose between the Greens and NZF. If they choose Peters again under those conditions then they deserve to lose even more of their constituency than they already have. And more power the Greens in the long term, although it would be very bad for NZ.

              • Te Reo Putake

                There are al sorts of ‘if’s’ in there, Weka. First, the Greens have to want to be in Government. They seem to be saying they do. Secondly, the other potential coalition partners have to want be in the same waka. Last time, Winston (and UF?) refused to have the Greens.
                 
                Thirdly, Labour have to be convinced to have the Greens on board. They might prefer the easy option of having NZF in Gov’t, the Greens outside, but supporting on C&S, because Winston’s demands will be a lot simpler (mainly a cabinet spot for both WP and Andrew Williams and a couple of policy points).
                 
                The Greens, on the other hand, would be expecting a few senior ministerial roles, the adoption of a lot of their policy. Labour know that even if they reject the Greens, they pretty much have to support a Labour led Government (as does Hone). The alternative is to either stay neutral or join up with National and end up like the Lib Dems in the UK.

                • weka

                  I think Tariana Turia also refused to work with Helen Clark.
                   
                  All good points TRP. But of course look what has happened to Labour since then. I think as the Greens go more mainstream, and the world gets scarier, more people are going to be voting Green. A chunk of that vote will come from Labour. If Labour screws the Greens again, I think that will accelerate the shift. There will be people who will keep voting Labour if they think the Greens are going to be part of the picture, but who will go to the Greens if they aren’t given their due.
                   
                  It’s time to get past the big major party supported by very small parties MMP model (a facsimile of FFP in some ways) and move onto co-operative politics. The sooner Labour gets to grips with the fact that the Greens are going to be major players the better for all of us.

                  • Te Reo Putake

                    I’ve been advocating for ages that Labour/Greens/Winston should come to a pre-election understanding on areas of common interest. That wouldn’t be a guarantee of the 3 forming all being in the Government, but if they could go to the public and say ‘a vote for any of NZF, Greens or the LP is a vote to save assets, strengthen KS and keep Kiwi workers working in NZ” (or similar planks), then you have the basis for your coalition right there, and you are getting a mandate for that Government and those policies at the election.
                     
                    Still leaves plenty of room to push other policies, as suits each party, but the fundamentals are there and you send a strong message that all 3 parties are ready to work together for the things that matter most.

                    • weka

                      That would be good for Labour and the Greens for sure. Won’t work with NZF though. Peters has already demonstrated that he is quite capable of betraying his constituency. It’s beyond me why anyone still trusts him. At least he does have the honesty to now say that he won’t commit to who he will go with pre-election.

        • Pete George 3.1.1.2

          If we take the percentage shift and apply it to the amount of electorate votes, Labour would win all of these seats.

          Except that percentage shifts never apply evenly across eelctorates. If you want to bet on trends then you might wager on a National win in Dunedin South.

          Epsom has kept defying trends and polls.

          There’s a lot that will happen between now and the November 2014, so it’s impossible to predict what will happen to Ohariu, Epsom and Maori seats.

          Dunne increased his Ohariu majority last year. That isn’t a trend, it’s a reversal of the previous election shrink. What happens next time will depend on:
          – the perception of Dunne’s performance this term
          – if National are punished whether Dunne will suffer with them or benefit
          – whether Dunne stands
          – who stands for Labour
          – who stands for National

          Selective number crunching now means little.

          • Lanthanide 3.1.1.2.1

            “so it’s impossible to predict what will happen to Ohariu, Epsom and Maori seats.”

            It’s never impossible to make a prediction.

            • McFlock 3.1.1.2.1.1

              But that would involve pete showing his true leanings, rather than waffling banalities. That might be the impossible bit.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.3

          This will change the seat allocation considerably.

          Not sure I get your point. In MMP doesn’t your number of seats simply match your party vote?

          And that is regardless of which electorates you specifically win, and the balance between the number of electorate and list seats your party finishes with.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.3.1

            In MMP doesn’t your number of seats simply match your party vote?

            Yes and no. Yes in that if you get lots of party votes the proportion of seats is greater than the number of electorate seats you won. No if the number of party votes entitles you to less than the number of electorate seats that you won.

            There’s also the fact that you can have significant votes but still not get any seats due to not winning any electorates and not getting over the threshold.

      • mike e 3.1.2

        pg on a lower turn out not like your 161 votes

      • lprent 3.1.3

        I believe the vote got split more evenly between National and Labour.

        In 2008 the Labour/Nat vote was just under 21k and your mate got a bit over 14k out of a vote of just under 38k.

        In 2011 the Labour/Nat vote was just over 21k with National doing better than 2011 and Labour doing a bit worse. Your mate dropped to a bit over 12k and lost almost 2k votes. That was despite the total vote increasing to just over 38k. This means that less than a third of the electorate voted for him.

        It wasn’t that he increased his vote – that has been diminishing each election like a dissipating Hawking quantum black hole.. It was that the differerence between National and Labour diminished, so that rather than having a single strong opponent he now has two hyenas squabbling over his scrawny carcasse.

        Have you been taking lessons from the Blingish school of dodgy self-serving and cherry picked numbers? Or is it just wishful thinking…

  4. Te Reo Putake 4

    Doing some calculations on the Electoral Office’s seat predictor after the last Roy Morgan, one thing really stood out. Labour need to take at least one seat off the Maori party to make the outcome certain. If the MP are reduced to 2 seats, then National only have 4 extra votes to back them (assuming there is still an NZF, ACT and UF presence).
     
    National need at least 45-46% to get to 61 seats, without the 3rd MP seat. Labour, however, could be able to form a simple minority coalition with the Greens at that point or an even smaller coalition with NZF, with Greens backing on C&S. 
     
    If the MP back Labour in a tight race, then National are completely in the wilderness. I would assume UF would also come crawling at that stage too, so a rout would be on the cards.
     
     
     
     

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1

      Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are now thinking about not retiring. Probably because they know that both NACT’s and MP’s only chance is if they stay in. Hopefully the people who vote MP will have woken up to the fact that the MP is a solid National support party by the next election.

  5. Rob Salmond 5

    I’ll have something for you tomorrow.

    • r0b 5.1

      Don’t feel compelled on my behalf! You’re doing it in your “spare” time, like the rest of us. But I am glad to hear that the Pundit PoP will be back…

  6. cin77 6

    The election is a couple of years away though, do the polls at this point really mean anything?

    • lprent 6.1

      This far out, individual polls are irrelevant (and I’d argue that small sample phone polls are never relevant at any time – tealeaves are a more accurate methodology).

      However trends in polls are relevant especially when they show people deciding against a government to the point that you get a strong trend. It may not be accurate but it shows a shift in political sentiment.

      Trends are reversible, but once started they tend to be very hard to shift. People en-mass tend to carry a lot of inertia.

    • Ed 6.2

      Not a lot on the results of the next election, although long term trends may indicate or cause movement in public perception. In the shorter term however we see from ?McCully? that National makes decisions based on polling
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/budget-2012/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503257&objectid=10811744

      With asset sales being unpopular even with many National voters, it is another decision where National have made only a vague case for any benefits arising from the sales, although a difference is that with the sales there have been a few consultants and merchant banks make some money from it already, and those wanting to buy are looking for a sale at a low price to make sure all the shares available are sold, and for electricity prices to then increase to give a good return to shareholders. If their polling shows however that this would be another large hit to support they may go slower on the process – which makes getting signatures on a petition important to those against the sales. National may feel they cannot afford to have yet another clear example of not listening to voters . . .

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.2.1

        The core service the National Party provides to its clients is wealth and resource transfer. These asset sales have been bought and paid for, failure to deliver them would seriously affect the party’s ability to raise money.

        • Pete George 6.2.1.1

          These asset sales have been bought and paid for

          You must have evidence to make a serious allegation like that. Specifics please.

          • McFlock 6.2.1.1.1

            National’s donor returns…

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1.1

              PG is funny; didn’t he get the memo that the investment banks and PR firms are benefitting to the tune of $120M (and likely much more) from the sale of our assets?

              • CV is funny, didn’t he get the memo that many businesses and organisations “benefit” from the government paying for their services, and they don’t all give donations to the government.

                And there’s no evidence that any donate to National and get a direct return of financial favours.

                • McFlock

                  True.
                  It’s all just a massive coincidence that national’s policies benefit its wealthy donors.  

                • Colonial Viper

                  PG – investment bankers and PR firms are benefitting to the tune of $120M. That’s a very tight knit and selective group that National, and Key personally, have close and ongoing ties to.

                  Choose to ignore it if you wish, but the cronyism is obvious.

                • KJT

                  They do not have to donate to Government.

                  Key and co will be paid the bribes after they leave Government. Just like US politicians.

                  With million dollar “jobs” in banking etc.

                  Ensuring their retirement income while thieving ours.

    • Dr Terry 6.3

      cin77, you have a point here. Given National’s stuff ups since the election one might have expected a bigger decline than, thus far, is the case. I am sure that Key will have “built in” this factor, and be delighted to get off this lightly. I would advise caution about overly optimistic predictions at this early time.

      • Jackal 6.3.1

        Hm! Key hasn’t “built in this factor” because things like the student/teacher ratio backdown (which none of the polls reflect yet) are not predetermined. The ACC scandal was also not something Key could factor in.

        Although the reduced support from unpopular asset sales is something that would have been realized by National, they’re simply willing to damage the party so them and their rich mates can make even more money from the public. That’s the kind of factoring in no party needs.

  7. Carol 7

    And oh, how the frequent polling and reporting on party popularity influences the outcomes!!!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812139

    Maori Party co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples have revealed they are reconsidering retiring from politics next election – just as a new poll shows them potentially holding the balance of power.

    Mrs Turia and Dr Sharples had indicated that the 2011 election would be their last.

    But they are reconsidering after being asked repeatedly by supporters, a party official said.

    Mrs Turia, 68, confirmed that last night on Prime News.

    “It may well be that we stand at the next election but … we are still working those issues through,” she said.

    And Dr Sharples, 70, also confirmed a rethink. “I’m giving that real consideration,” he told the channel from China, where he is leading a Maori business delegation.

  8. Sanctuary 8

    I was surprised at how blithely Duncan Garner dismissed NZ First making it over the threshold whilst assuming ACT, United Future and the Maori party will all still be around or significantly relevant after the next election. If instead of simply swallowing Garner’s bias that only the variables you assume remain constant from 2011 are the ones you want to, and assume ALL the variables still apply then it gets really interesting.

    Then the Lab+Green+Maori+Mana vote comes in at 57-59 seats and Nat+ACT+UF comes in at 56-58 seats with Winston and NZ First on 6 seats.

    • felix 8.1

      “I was surprised at how blithely Duncan Garner dismissed NZ First making it over the threshold whilst assuming ACT, United Future and the Maori party will all still be around or significantly relevant after the next election.”

      The 5% threshold isn’t relevant to ACT, United Future or the maori Party. All of their seats are electorate seats.

    • Pete 8.2

      That’s just the way MMP works. NZF doesn’t have an constituency seat lifeboat and it’s unlikely that Peters will win a seat in 2014. He has to get 5%. Act will likely survive through another nod and wink deal with the Nats for a seat and the Maori Party typically win more constituency seats than their total party vote would otherwise mandate – hence the overhang in parliament and the need for 62 seats to form a government, rather than 61.

    • ianmac 8.3

      Remember Sanctuary, that Duncan Garner has an unprofessional hatred of NZF and especially of Winston Peters. If NZF was riding on 20% Duncan would still be saying NZF was out of the picture. I much rather prefer the measured responses from Brent Edwards.

  9. ianmac 9

    The real thing about downward trends is that it puts doubt in the minds of those who take a superficial interests in politics. Suggests that His feet are made of clay.
    “Pass me the sugar please. National and Key are sliding I hear. Mmm. The bus was late again today….”

  10. vto 10

    I suspect that this reasonably quick drop will continue. It is like the class size dispute has taken the scab off all those other issues. That the emperor has no clothes has finally been noticed. The genie is out of the bottle.

    Perhaps they will be headed for a terrible rout at the next election and Key will go down as one of our least accomplished PMs.

    • Jackal 10.1

      Key is already one of our least accomplished PMs.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1

        Depends upon how you measure it. In terms of doing right for NZ then he’s the least accomplished, in terms of giving NZs wealth to the rich he’s done quite well.

  11. Dr Terry 11

    vto, what a delightful dream; let’s wait now to see whether or not good dreams come true!

  12. Sanctuary 12

    National’s problem is a simple one. After a first term of doing nothing except feed the trolls, they’ve discovering their policy program of warmed over Shipleyism is no more popular in 2012 than it was in 1999, even if John Key is a better used car saleman than Jenny Shipley ever was.

    • Murray Olsen 12.1

      I’d say Key is more of a car thief. He steals your car (assets) then pretends to sell it back to you.

  13. duncan garner 13

    Ianmac

    What a wildy inaccurate statement to say I have an “unprofessional hatred of NZ First and Winston.” I’ve known and reported on Winston now for more than 15 years and while we have had our battles to say I have an unprofessional hatred of him and his party shows only one thing .. that you live on another planet, yet to be discovered. Saying NO when he meant YES caused the media to have “trust issues” with Winston – I think that is obvious. And surely you’re not defending him on that are you?

    I happen to think Peters will be back next time and for some reason all the polls once again aren’t picking him up. I can’t make my poll up – but I do have to report the results as they come in. But Felix got it right, some parties hold seats and get in for that reason, others like NZ First don’t and therefore when they slip below the threshold fall out of the reckoning. But I happen to believe he will be back in 2 and a half years time.

    Watch your wild statements Ianmac – or at least make them have a half a spec of credibility as we try to reach you on that far flung planet.

    Cheers
    Duncan

    • Matthew Hooton 13.1

      Duncan – I want to know why you don’t have an “unprofessional hatred of NZ First and Winston”? You should. Its the only rational and ethical attitude towards him and his “party”.

    • gobsmacked 13.2

      Hi Duncan

      Do you have any idea why 2-3% of people pick Winston for preferred PM, and then not NZ First for the party vote? The former always outscores the latter, in successive polls – it’s strange.

      • Matthew Hooton 13.2.1

        gobsmacked – my hypothesis on that is that a big chunk of his bewildered and deranged supporters don’t know the name of his party. So they say they back him but don’t know to say they support NZ First. At election time, most of his advertising is about linking his name to NZ First so that his supporters will remember the name of the party when they vote. I am not sure how this hypothesis could be tested though.

        • Lanthanide 13.2.1.1

          He should rename the party to Winston Peter’s NZ First, like Jim Anderton’s Progressives.

        • felix 13.2.1.2

          “At election time, most of his advertising is about linking his name to NZ First so that his supporters will remember the name of the party when they vote.”

          Hmm, a bit like John Key then. Although he’s regretting it now, what with National tarnishing his reputation and dragging him down in the polls…

    • Who would have thought that a “wildy inaccurate statement” would be made here? Without anything to back it up. And unchallenged by regular commenters.

      What sort of standard is this?

      [Pete – remember a while back and the overwhelming complaints about your behaviour? I said I’d be looking out for comments from you that have no content and are just for petty point scoring? This is a perfect example. Please lift your game. — r0b]

      • McFlock 13.3.1

        more to the point, who would have thought that a politician telling an untruth to the media would cause “trust issues”? 
               
        Maybe the media would go easier on Winston if the sign had said “dinnamik inviramin, 170,000 more jobs”. 

      • Pete George 13.3.2

        r0b: You’re telling me to “lift my game” while letting others get away with any sort of unsubstantiated accusations they want to make? Does “lifting my game” mean I can do the same thing? Or am I on separate rules here?

        I don’t see you asking the frequent nil content petty point scoring commenters aiming at me being asked to lift their game.

        I suggest that those making “overwhelming complaints” often display worse behaviour than I do. Is that the sort of behaviour you want to encourage here?

        • r0b 13.3.2.1

          Pete, you comment here a lot. Most of it is a good, but a fair chunk of it (like 13.3) is drivel. Because you comment so much you have stood out and been noticed, and lots of people have complained about you. When that happens we ask the offender (you) to have a think about their style.

          It has happened in the past to others, it will happen in the future to others. I’m not picking on you, I’m trying to moderate a certain style and volume of commenting that messes up the blog.

          • Pete George 13.3.2.1.1

            I often think about my style and content, and usually stick to the guidelines that I’ve been given.

            Have you noticed that the volume of my comments is nothing out of the ordinary (compared to other regulars) when I’m not being attacked by others with far messier styles than I use. I think I abide by the rules here more consistently than many others.

            An observation – you say you’re “not picking on” me, but you call me the offender, and I don’t see others being asked to think about their style.

            • mac1 13.3.2.1.1.1

              Hmmm…. I’ve offered twice recently to engage with you, Pete George, over your use of the word ‘cacophony’ to describe the successful opposition to increasing class sizes. You have chosen not to reply. I say accordingly that you are in the habit of dropping in contentious statements but not staying around to defend them. That eventually means you are not worth engaging with. You will have to be judged accordingly by what you write but also by what you choose to not defend.

              • I most often try and return engagement, but it’s easy to get sidetracked and miss things, especially when there is a lot of cacophony around my comments. I do deliberately try to avoid some awkward questions but rarely.

                I accept “cacophony” was a contentious term to use regarding class sizes, but that’s how I heard the initial noise around the class size debate. As the panel on The Nation said on Saturday, it took a while to sort through that noise and work out there was more substance to it than the usual “cry wolf” opposition.

                It wasn’t until the cacophony subsided that the effective opposition kicked in.

                • Bob

                  Don’t worry Pete, it’s just more ‘Nanny state’ tactics of the left to shut down anything that doesn’t conform to their way of thinking. Take it on the chin and move on.

        • felix 13.3.2.2

          “I think I abide by the rules here more consistently than many others.”

          Lolz Pete, most of us get a warning now and then when we overstep the mark. As Darryl Kerrigan says “But it’s what you do with it”.

          It’s not a big deal. Most of us respond by apologising, taking note of the warning and modifying our behaviour.

          Your response to being warned for content-free comments, on the other hand, is three more essentially content-free comments complaining about the warning.

          Just something to think about.

          • Pete George 13.3.2.2.1

            No more content free that some of your posts, even some in this very topic.

            I’ll apologise and acknowledge I’ve overstepped when I know I have. You’re right, it’s not a big deal – I’ve done that before for a fair cop. But when all I have done is a mild version of what is commonly done here I don’t see a need to.

            Interesting that you suggest it’s inappropriate to speak up for yourself. Should one just sheepishly modify their behaviour to avoid anyone complaining despite one often seeing others doing worse? Just something to think about.

      • mike e 13.3.3

        pg free tips time for a cup of tea their boy

    • Blue 13.4

      It’s a rather idiotic thing for a political journalist to say that they have ‘trust issues’ with a politician, Duncan.

      You are not meant to ‘trust’ any of them. It is your job to doubt and to question everything a politician tells you. If the public were meant to ‘trust’ them then we wouldn’t need you.

    • ianmac 13.5

      Note Duncan that I have never voted for NZF. My observation revolves around what I would call as unprofessional, your behaviour around the 2008 election when in Winston’s absence you went ballistic during that Panel discussion. That is one occasion. The importance of remembering that event is as valid as remembering the NO saga after all this time. There have been numerous “NO” times in recent politics (Think Banks, Collins, Parata, Key) which you choose to gloss over.

      If we are to gain anything from Political commentators then enthusiasm for your craft is good. Significant bias destroys credibility. Where do you fit?

    • js 13.6

      I am no longer surprised at the affection for Winston Peters which turned into votes from many of my usually staunch left feminist friends. Once they reach gold card age he seems to somehow speak to them personally.

  14. tracey 14

    How can any journalist have trust issues with wp but not with jk and many of his mps?

    • ianmac 14.1

      Oops. Just spotted your bit Tracey. Your one line says what I took many to say. Cheers.

  15. AnnaLiviaPluraBella 15

    National are down a few points and Labour has not budged since the loss in 2008. Do not use 2011 as a benchmark. And the Preferred Leader picture is not attractive.

    Hold-off on the sparkling white wine. Winning a few skirmishes with the Nats is not hard. They have been self-inflicted.

    What we need is a winning narrative that shows the people of New Zealand, and the ever increasing Diaspora, that we understand our surroundings and the context on their behalf.
    We need a narrative that shows we understand the threats and opportunities as well at the strengths and weaknesses.
    We need more of the thinking that acknowledges we have dumped the flawed policies of the past, and that we have learned from them.
    The non-voting, the departing and the defecting are not hearing that from Labour. We have to hear it soon.

    • Red Rosa 15.1

      Well said. There has to be a positive message developed, and soon.

      The Labour Party has always rescued NZ from the wreckage of right-wing policies, and that includes Muldoon.. condemned of course now as a socialist now by the Nats….;)

      So how to communicate this to the 30% who didn’t vote last time? Notably the younger voters? Many of us recall the Shipley-Richardson era, and the resulting heave-ho.

      Can this thumping result be repeated, 20 years on?

      • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1

        The Labour Party has always rescued NZ from the wreckage of right-wing policies, and that includes Muldoon..

        The problem was with the way that they saved us as it really was a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Now we have to get out of the fire and not back into the frying pan.

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.2

        The Labour Party has always rescued NZ from the wreckage of right-wing policies, and that includes Muldoon.. condemned of course now as a socialist now by the Nats….;)

        You are incorrect. Or at least, imprecise.

        It was a Labour Government which introduced free market neoliberalism to NZ. Regardless of “Left” or “Right” monikers, that single move has been the most damaging to society in NZ history.

        That was also the period where the Labour Party gutted itself, and it has never recovered.

  16. ad 16

    +1.
    I gues to help define that perilous word “narrative” for New Zealand, it’s
    – A way of describing the country that many can assent to and feel like they have a place in
    – An axiomatic shift from “what is” to “what should be”
    – A way of explaining complex factors upon the country into simple and more integrated factors
    – The refining of a common sense and with it a common purpose

    For my personal preference, one that is stronger on basic abstract nouns like hope and aspiration as distinct from crisis, anomie, and doom. Without going all Obama Chigago 2009 on us.

    Takes a pretty skilled politician to pull it off without going all sickly patriotic, so subtlety is vital. But we all know it when we feel it.

  17. Foreign Waka 17

    What I really miss is a decisive message from Labour what their plan is for each of these major portfolios. Do they have one other than raising the age of retirement? Not that National has come up with something productive (asset sales it is not). But where are the ideas that will show what Labour actually stands for? The only real alternative inclusive of ideas so far has come from the greens.

    • Murray Olsen 17.1

      I’ve got the same problem with Labour. I have no idea what they stand for, apart from not being National. If I’m still alive at the next election, I’ll be voting Mana if they stand in my electorate, otherwise Greens and Mana can have my party vote. Even though I’d vote for them, I don’t think the situation we are in can be fixed within capitalism, but at least Mana have a bit of the mongrel in them that will be necessary for the struggle ahead. Also, while it’s not the central issue, I do hope they change to a better position on marriage for anyone that wants it.

    • BillODrees 17.2

      #foreignwaka
      Labour has the answers but not the voice. The answers are in it’s history and it’s people.  They have an excellent policy machine (bright people). It now needs to focus on the future of New Zealanders. It needs to free itself from the shackles of the past strategies.
       The next phase of New Zealand history will not be defined by games inside the Wellington Beltway. The “clever insiders” have failed.

      I agree with you and the previous writers that we now need someone who can deliver a decisive message.

       Someone in Labour needs to focus on 5 years and 10 years out.  When we own the future vision our people will come back: back to the polling booth from the couch or garden on election day, back from the Gold Coast, back from the Greens/Mana/Maori. 

  18. r0b 18

    Great to see the Pundit poll of polls up to date again – check it out.

  19. Carol 19

    Rod Salmond’s poll of polls update is now on Pundit, with a post about it from Salmond:

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/trend-left-turn

    At the election, the gap between the right (NACT) and left (L+G) was around 11%. We estimate the gap today at around 2%, and some of the polls are even starting to show the potential left coalition ahead.

    Almost all the estimates show that if the next election were held now, there would be no clear winner on the night. This is the number that shows up the claims that National really hasn’t too much to worry about because its support is unchanged from election day. Maybe so, but everybody else’s support has shifted around, and National’s opponents look more formidable now than last November.

    As I noted at the start of 2011, you don’t want to extrapolate this kind of trend far into the future.
    […]
    This is not to say the Opposition can sleep walk to victory. Far from it. Governments do not fall over on their own.
    [..]
    Current polling trends suggest the election will be close, but I expect the advantage will lie with the left.

    It is now up to National to find a circuit breaker, a position John Key is not accustomed to.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

1 2 3 8

  • Tragedy must be impetus for better training
    The Police Minister needs to explain why unsworn and inadequately trained custody officers were put in a situation of caring for a medically unwell prisoner on a busy Saturday night, Labour’s Police spokesperson Kelvin Davis says. Commenting on an IPCA… ...
    5 hours ago
  • Government must be more transparent on investor state clauses
    The Government must be more transparent around the draft investor state dispute settlements in the TPPA, says David Parker, Labour’s Export Growth and Trade spokesperson. “Labour is pro trade, and is proud of the FTA we negotiated with China, which… ...
    10 hours ago
  • Protect university staff and student voices
    The Green Party believes ensuring student and staff representation on university councils is important. National recently passed a law reducing the size of university governance councils while increasing the proportion of the members nominated by, guess who… Steven Joyce. The… ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes MP
    1 day ago
  • C’mon Nick what’s the truth on the RMA
     “Nick Smith has got to fess up and tell us what is happening to his much vaunted RMA reform, Labour’s Environment spokesperson Megan Woods says.  “With just a day and a half to go before the polls open in Northland,… ...
    1 day ago
  • SSC salaries sink National’s spending spin
    Massive pay rises at the State Services Commission prove National’s claims of clamping down on spending in the public sector are simply fantasy, Labour’s State Services spokesman Kris Faafoi says. “Salaries in this one department are almost $70,000 more than… ...
    1 day ago
  • We can fix Christchurch and keep our assets
    The Christchurch City Council is seeking public feedback on its proposed 10 year plan for Council revenue and spending. This is probably one of the most significant 10 year plans ever to be written by a local council because of… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    1 day ago
  • Epidemic of serious assaults in our prisons
    Labour wants stab proof vests and pepper spray for all corrections officers to keep them safe from the epidemic of serious prison assaults that are occurring around the country’s jails, says Labour’s Corrections Spokesperson Kelvin Davis.  “There have been five… ...
    1 day ago
  • Listen to the locals Hekia!
    Minister Hekia Parata needs to understand what consultation is, Port Hills MP Ruth Dyson says. “It means you have to listen to what people say in their submissions and then be able to demonstrate you have considered their views when… ...
    2 days ago
  • Thanking our caregivers
    Let’s celebrate and thank our caregivers. This week is caregivers’ week. It’s a chance to acknowledge the thousands of women, and occasional other person, who are caring for the elderly and disabled in our country. They hold people’s lives in… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    2 days ago
  • Mana Post shop the best outcome for community
    Labour MP for Mana Kris Faafoi has welcomed the move to place the services from the Mana Post shop to a local small business. “This is the best outcome for the community we could ask for. All the vital services… ...
    2 days ago
  • Labour looks to put the tea back into entitlements
    Labour is moving to restore the rights of Kiwis to take tea and rest breaks, Leader Andrew Little says. “Within months of the Government’s Employment Relations Amendment Bill becoming law we are already seeing some of our largest companies, including… ...
    2 days ago
  • Desperate money grab to keep Ruataniwha afloat
    The Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company’s decision to borrow $4 million to keep the Ruataniwha project afloat is a case of throwing ratepayer’s good money after bad, says Labour’s Water spokesperson Meka Whaitiri and Napier MP Stuart Nash.   “This bridging… ...
    3 days ago
  • Roundup: UN finds it “probably” causes cancer
    At last the UN has spoken out against the widely-used weedkiller Roundup. The UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified glyphosate, the principle ingredient in Roundup, as a probable carcinogen. They also include as probable carcinogens the insecticides… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    3 days ago
  • Invermay petition delivered to Parliament
    Labour’s Economic Development spokesperson David Clark handed over a 12,450 signature Save Invermay petition to Dunedin South MP Clare Curran on the steps of Parliament today.  “The level of support that the petition has received across New Zealand is overwhelming,”… ...
    3 days ago
  • Redcliffs School closure plan wrong
    The Government’s proposal to consult on the closure of Redcliffs School not only goes against the best geotechnical advice, but more importantly goes against the best educational outcomes for Redcliffs children and the health of our community, Port Hills MP… ...
    3 days ago
  • Cotton On first to test the tea breaks law
    Australian corporate Cotton On, the first major business operating in New Zealand to exploit the new tea breaks law, could walk away from negotiations if it doesn’t get its own way, says Labour Party Labour Relations spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway.  “Cotton… ...
    4 days ago
  • World water day: eight rivers in one day
    Our photo journey started by the Waioweka (also known as Waioeka) River which flows from Te Urewera to Opotiki, and is surrounded by beautiful forest. The water looked great! Kopeopeo Canal It contrasted greatly with the Kopeopeo Canal near Whakatane,… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    4 days ago
  • Council can stop Port’s encroachment on harbour
    As owner of the Port of Auckland, Council can stop the wharf extension and reclamation if it wants to, says Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Goff. ‘As owner the council is custodian of the port and harbour on behalf of… ...
    4 days ago
  • We all benefit when education meets everyone’s needs
    As Dyslexia week comes to a close,  Dyslexia NZ have reminded us that around 10% of our citizens are dyslexic and are entitled to better support. One of their strongest arguments is that failure to provide identification and support for… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    4 days ago
  • State house sell-off fiasco a gift for developers
    The Government’s property developer mates are the only people who can salvage National’s state house sell-off now the Salvation Army has torpedoed the policy, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Having been cynically used by the Government as the poster… ...
    4 days ago
  • National reinforces inequality in schools
    The National Government’s flagship programme Investing in Educational Success is clearly reinforcing inequality in the school system, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “The analysis released today by the NZEI clearly shows schools in wealthier suburbs are the main beneficiaries… ...
    4 days ago
  • Big change starts small
    Today marks Race Relations Day in New Zealand. Race Relations Day coincides with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  The United Nations General Assembly chose this day as it marks the day in 1960 when 69 peaceful… ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche MP
    6 days ago
  • Israel, Palestine and the question of statehood
    The knife-edge election in Israel complicates the Middle East situation, even more than usual. The Prime Minister-elect, Binyamin Netanyahu, is moving to form a government. Netanyahu has indicated that, during his term, a Palestinian state would not be established. That… ...
    GreensBy Kennedy Graham MP
    1 week ago
  • Christchurch transport goes backwards
    The Green Party has a vision of a liveable, accessible Christchurch with a sense of identity and strong connected communities. Instead, 2013 census figures released by Statistics New Zealand reveal a fractured community, and tell a story of frustrated Christchurch commuters… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    1 week ago
  • Super Fund should divest $140 million in high risk coal
    The Green Party is calling on the New Zealand Super Fund to divest their $140 million investment in coal companies that are vulnerable to becoming financially stranded according to a damning new report from Oxford University. The Smith School of… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    1 week ago
  • Learn to count with Mark Osborne: 0 + 1 = ?
    The adage about the first casualty of war being truth is one that might often be applied to the political battle for hearts and minds, and of course votes. A rather unfortunate example of this has been arriving in the… ...
    GreensBy David Clendon MP
    1 week ago
  • Is it still a safety net when the holes are this big?
    Over the last few weeks I’ve been wondering how safe our income support system is for people, especially those with cognitive or learning disabilities. I’ve been trying to support a young man who was severely injured in a workplace accident… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    1 week ago
  • Pasifika – protecting the Pacific needed now more than ever.
    Over the weekend thousands of Aucklanders flocked to celebrate our city’s diverse Pacific communities and cultures at the annual Pasifika festival and the Greens were there to join them. The Pasifika festival has been held every year for 23… ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche MP
    1 week ago
  • Sounds Stakeholders Seek a Sustainable Future
    It was heartening to see a large number of people who care about the Marlborough Sounds come together at the Marlborough Marine Futures’ forum in Picton on March 8. Fellow Green MP Steffan Browning, who lives in Marlborough, and I… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Solid Energy, who will clean up the mess?
    What can you say? This state-owned coal miner is facing some very serious problems. They haven’t run a profit in years, have required two Government bailouts, laid-off more than 700 staff and look like they need a third injection of… ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes MP
    2 weeks ago

Removed at the request of The Daily Blog.
Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere