Trendy polls

121 comments on “Trendy polls ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   11 June 2012 at 7:38 am

   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

     11 June 2012 at 9:01 am

     The updated (and permanent) one is here.
     (Not incredibly different, but will change as new polls come in).
     • Ben Clark 1.1.1

       11 June 2012 at 9:09 am

       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. Pete George 2

   11 June 2012 at 7:59 am

   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.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     11 June 2012 at 8:06 am

     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

       11 June 2012 at 8:36 am

       No one wanted another Helen Clark government, thinking they did means you have learnt nothing.
       • mickysavage 2.1.1.1

         11 June 2012 at 8:38 am

         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.
         • Rob 2.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2012 at 8:55 am

           oh dear, in your world people either agree with you or they are supporters of eugenics programmes. 
           • Bunji 2.1.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2012 at 9:31 am

             I think mickysavage is having a case of mistaken identity.
         • Rob 2.1.1.1.2

           11 June 2012 at 8:59 am

           Oh dear, some more binary thinking from Greg.  You either fully agree with your point of veiw otherwise you are a supporter of eugenics.
           • felix 2.1.1.1.2.1

             11 June 2012 at 11:10 am

             That’s quite a spectacular inability to parse language, Rob. You might want to have another go at it.
             • Rob …

               11 June 2012 at 12:46 pm

               Yes Sir, straight away.
         • infused 2.1.1.1.3

           11 June 2012 at 12:55 pm

           lol.
       • Dr Terry 2.1.1.2

         11 June 2012 at 9:44 am

         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

           11 June 2012 at 10:39 am

           + 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

           11 June 2012 at 4:07 pm

           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

             11 June 2012 at 4:40 pm

             Me too.
             • Rob …

               11 June 2012 at 5:25 pm

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

                 11 June 2012 at 6:43 pm

                 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

         11 June 2012 at 8:21 pm

         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

       11 June 2012 at 9:04 am

       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

         11 June 2012 at 11:26 am

         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

   11 June 2012 at 8:06 am

   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.
   • Pete George 3.1

     11 June 2012 at 9:06 am

     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

       11 June 2012 at 9:47 am

       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

         11 June 2012 at 9:59 am

         ” 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

           11 June 2012 at 10:12 am

           But, going on past performance, probable.
           • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2012 at 10:15 am

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

               11 June 2012 at 12:43 pm

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

                 11 June 2012 at 2:45 pm

                 Yep.
               • Bob …

                 12 June 2012 at 2:14 am

                 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 …

                   12 June 2012 at 2:16 am

                   Yeah I have. They’ve given it some backbone.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   12 June 2012 at 3:51 am

                   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

           11 June 2012 at 10:54 am

           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

             11 June 2012 at 9:41 pm

             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.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               12 June 2012 at 3:59 am

               Actually, high taxes and some direction for the economy are exactly what we need.
         • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.3

           11 June 2012 at 11:54 am

           “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

             11 June 2012 at 11:58 am

             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 …

               11 June 2012 at 12:18 pm

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

               11 June 2012 at 1:46 pm

               +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 …

               11 June 2012 at 11:55 pm

               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 …

                 11 June 2012 at 11:59 pm

                 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

             11 June 2012 at 12:07 pm

             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 …

               11 June 2012 at 12:22 pm

               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 …

                 11 June 2012 at 3:15 pm

                 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 …

                   11 June 2012 at 3:52 pm

                   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 …

                     11 June 2012 at 4:53 pm

                     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

         11 June 2012 at 11:21 am

         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

           11 June 2012 at 11:55 am

           “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

             11 June 2012 at 12:37 pm

             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

         11 June 2012 at 12:51 pm

         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

           11 June 2012 at 4:17 pm

           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

       11 June 2012 at 6:10 pm

       pg on a lower turn out not like your 161 votes
     • lprent 3.1.3

       12 June 2012 at 12:14 am

       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

   11 June 2012 at 8:07 am

   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

     11 June 2012 at 8:45 am

     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

   11 June 2012 at 8:15 am

   I’ll have something for you tomorrow.
   • r0b 5.1

     11 June 2012 at 9:28 am

     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

   11 June 2012 at 8:17 am

   The election is a couple of years away though, do the polls at this point really mean anything?
   • lprent 6.1

     11 June 2012 at 8:37 am

     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

     11 June 2012 at 9:02 am

     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

       11 June 2012 at 11:35 am

       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

         11 June 2012 at 11:47 am

         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

           11 June 2012 at 12:05 pm

           National’s donor returns…
           • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2012 at 12:53 pm

             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?
             • Pete George …

               11 June 2012 at 1:18 pm

               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 …

                 11 June 2012 at 1:28 pm

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

                 11 June 2012 at 6:18 pm

                 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 …

                 11 June 2012 at 7:04 pm

                 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

     11 June 2012 at 9:51 am

     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

       11 June 2012 at 10:16 am

       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

   11 June 2012 at 8:36 am

   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.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     11 June 2012 at 8:47 am

     ha, snap
8. Sanctuary 8

   11 June 2012 at 8:46 am

   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

     11 June 2012 at 9:02 am

     “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

     11 June 2012 at 9:06 am

     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

     11 June 2012 at 9:41 am

     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

   11 June 2012 at 9:45 am

   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

    11 June 2012 at 9:48 am

    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

      11 June 2012 at 10:21 am

      Key is already one of our least accomplished PMs.
      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1

        11 June 2012 at 10:28 am

        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

    11 June 2012 at 9:56 am

    vto, what a delightful dream; let’s wait now to see whether or not good dreams come true!
12. Sanctuary 12

    11 June 2012 at 10:57 am

    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

      11 June 2012 at 5:15 pm

      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

    11 June 2012 at 11:44 am

    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

      11 June 2012 at 11:50 am

      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

      11 June 2012 at 11:51 am

      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

        11 June 2012 at 11:53 am

        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

          11 June 2012 at 12:00 pm

          He should rename the party to Winston Peter’s NZ First, like Jim Anderton’s Progressives.
          • felix 13.2.1.1.1

            11 June 2012 at 3:23 pm

            He could rename it “The Winston Party”, and then change his last name to “Party”.
            • Te Reo Putake 13.2.1.1.1.1

              11 June 2012 at 3:40 pm

              Win Dotcom?
        • felix 13.2.1.2

          11 June 2012 at 3:21 pm

          “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…
    • Pete George 13.3

      11 June 2012 at 11:54 am

      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

        11 June 2012 at 12:09 pm

        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

        11 June 2012 at 12:31 pm

        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

          11 June 2012 at 12:42 pm

          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

            11 June 2012 at 1:11 pm

            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

              11 June 2012 at 1:20 pm

              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.
              • Pete George …

                11 June 2012 at 1:48 pm

                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 …

                  12 June 2012 at 4:24 am

                  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

          11 June 2012 at 6:34 pm

          “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

            11 June 2012 at 7:29 pm

            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.
            • felix 13.3.2.2.1.1

              11 June 2012 at 8:16 pm

              Ah well, my hopes weren’t high.
            • mickysavage 13.3.2.2.1.2

              11 June 2012 at 8:39 pm

              Pete as a bit of friendly advice if Felix offers some friendly advice accept it.  Do not keep digging.
      • mike e 13.3.3

        11 June 2012 at 6:15 pm

        pg free tips time for a cup of tea their boy
    • Blue 13.4

      11 June 2012 at 1:15 pm

      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

      11 June 2012 at 3:06 pm

      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

      11 June 2012 at 3:49 pm

      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

    11 June 2012 at 1:38 pm

    How can any journalist have trust issues with wp but not with jk and many of his mps?
    • ianmac 14.1

      11 June 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Oops. Just spotted your bit Tracey. Your one line says what I took many to say. Cheers.
15. AnnaLiviaPluraBella 15

    11 June 2012 at 2:30 pm

    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

      11 June 2012 at 6:23 pm

      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

        11 June 2012 at 6:40 pm

        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

        11 June 2012 at 7:03 pm

        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

    11 June 2012 at 2:56 pm

    +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

    11 June 2012 at 8:17 pm

    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

      11 June 2012 at 9:56 pm

      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

      11 June 2012 at 10:34 pm

      #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

    11 June 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Great to see the Pundit poll of polls up to date again – check it out.
19. Carol 19

    12 June 2012 at 5:47 pm

    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

1. Trouble? No! Look at Nice Mr Key « The Standard: posted on 12 June 2012 at 4:06 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS