Another flatlining Roy Morgan

Written By: - Date published: 6:15 pm, January 31st, 2013 - 282 comments
Categories: polls - Tags:

The latest Roy Morgan poll has National on 46%, Labour 31.5%, the Greens on 13.5%, and NZ First on 5.5%.

It just amazes me the government can still poll close to 50% after stuff up, after stuff up. Were this reflected in an election then you can bank on a National-NZ First Government.

I’m sick of hearing from Labour “just wait, it’ll get better”. Well it’s not. You’ve been stuck in the early 30s now for 4 years. So stop making excuses.

The Greens have done their bit.

Maybe it’s time Labour started focusing on the important stuff rather than pulling silly stunts in Parliament like around the Speaker nomination today. Instead, take some risks and put yourselves on the line for the people who put you there.

Because right now, it’s just sad.

lprent: What is even sadder is the government confidence rating (unless you are a National supporter of course).

282 comments on “Another flatlining Roy Morgan ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    31 January 2013 at 6:49 pm

    2 years to go Nats are going to discredit themselves voters will get it soon.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      31 January 2013 at 6:55 pm

      Oh, that’s happening. Even my oldest sister has said that she won’t vote National in the next election after voting National for 40+ years. Don’t think that the rest of my National voting siblings have crossed The Rubicon yet.

    • Zetetic 1.2
      31 January 2013 at 7:10 pm

      Andre – It’s been four years. Yet people will still vote for John Key above Labour by huge margins. If things don’t change in Labour, I don’t think another two years will do much.

      You can’t just wait these things out.

      • Andre 1.2.1
        31 January 2013 at 7:18 pm

        Key is out of plausible excuses . More grassroots campaigning .The economy is not going anywhere only down .2 years and you will see.. 1.5% up for greens, our mates

        • CV - Real Labour 1.2.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 7:28 pm

          More grassroots campaigning? Good idea. And who is going to do that exactly?

        • Coronial Typer 1.2.1.2
          31 January 2013 at 7:28 pm

          Labour’s leadership team and Shearer are out of excuses.
          Perform or get the hell out.

          • CV - Real Labour 1.2.1.2.1
            31 January 2013 at 7:40 pm

            Give them another 12 months then you reckon?

            • Coronial Typer 1.2.1.2.1.1
              31 January 2013 at 7:43 pm

              Give them another 12 days.

            • hush minx 1.2.1.2.1.2
              31 January 2013 at 7:45 pm

              Can’t you hear them now in 12 months time ‘oh but it’s too close, we can’t risk looking unstable now…’. Wait a minute. Isn’t that what happened with Goff already?

              • Johninsg …
                1 February 2013 at 8:57 am

                “Flatlining” in terms of display of vital signs on a medical monitoring equipment like an echocardiogram indicates death or near death?

              • Jackal …
                1 February 2013 at 9:06 am

                There seems to be one factor that nobody has mentioned yet, the holidays. Although National has been stuffing up, there’s been very little in depth reporting on it and what has been reported is generally ignored by those who are enjoying the sun.

                That’s the main reason there’s been little change in the polling, not because Labour has let the side down. The confidence rating improves when the weather does as well… But I guess those aren’t factors worth mentioning in any analysis eh!

                • wobble …
                  1 February 2013 at 9:13 am

                  It’s been the holidays for the last four years has it?

                  I guess it has.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  1 February 2013 at 9:14 am

                  Bullshit. Labour climbed all through the same Dec-Jan holiday period the previous year.

                  Oh yeah, that was mostly because of the exciting Leadership Primary contest we held for the first time.

      • Tom Gould 1.2.2
        31 January 2013 at 8:29 pm

        Are you seriously suggesting that a lurch to the hard left will have people abandoning Key and National and flocking to Labour? Besides, Key has a lock on the gallery and the MSM,, who are simply reflecting the wider public mood. Lurching to the hard left will leave them even more alienated than they are.

        • Jenny 1.2.2.1
          31 January 2013 at 10:46 pm

          A little more to the left would be good, too.

        • Olwyn 1.2.2.2
          31 January 2013 at 10:59 pm

          Has anyone suggested a lurch to the hard left? It is possible to put up a genuine, well thought out alternative however, believe in it, and defend it strongly. It is also possible to see Labour as a broad movement, open to being inspired and invigorated.

          • Jackal 1.2.2.2.1
            1 February 2013 at 9:04 am

            CV is hard left and often advocates for Labour to be as well Olwyn… Haven’t you noticed?

            • rosy 1.2.2.2.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 9:07 am

              CV is not talking any more left than NZ was before rogernomics. It certainly didn’t feel hard left back then. It seems to be that the centre has shifted toward the right

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.2.1.2
              1 February 2013 at 9:12 am

              Jackal you probably think that being able to study at university for $750 per year is “hard left”.

              Yet all the troughers leading Parliament today, that’s what they were able to do. They just don’t have any problem pulling up the ladder on the next generation.

              rosy – thanks.

              • Jackal …
                1 February 2013 at 10:51 am

                It wasn’t meant as an insult CV… I’m hard left as well, and as far as I can tell we just have differing views on how to achieve what are largely the same goals.

                RedLogix says:

                It’s the banksters who are the parasites.

                Coronial Viper says:

                And also the other infrastructure ticket clippers – private telecom, private financial transaction infrastructure, private electricity, etc.

                Banks and financial infrastructure need to be publicly held and treated as utilities run for the public good.

                That’s pretty hard left if you ask me… You’re in fact Socialists, there shouldn’t be any stigma attached to admitting it, unless you buy into all that mumbo jumbo from people like Matthew Hooton that is.

                • CV - Real Labour …
                  1 February 2013 at 11:02 am

                  every Labour membership card mentioned Democratic Socialism on its back. They’ve recently deleted all details about the objectives and values of the Labour Party, and all mention of democratic socialism, from the latest plasticky membership card.

                  Which strikes me as absolutely appropriate for the modern Labour Party.

                  You may be “hard left” in personal philosophy Jackal, but your push is consistently for a centrist/light right political party you think can win the election.

                  • Jackal …
                    1 February 2013 at 11:16 am

                    You seem to be mixing up marketing with values again CV…

                    My advice is that you shouldn’t blame Labour for the right wing winning the debate in the publics mind concerning Socialism.

                    You may be “hard left” in personal philosophy Jackal, but your push is consistently for a centrist/light right political party you think can win the election.

                    …And Labour wining the next election is somehow a bad thing CV?

                    You seem to be arguing for a hard left party that will directly compete for votes with the Greens and thus lower both parties support. Such a move would more likely give Nationals neoliberal agenda even more time in the hot seat.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      1 February 2013 at 12:34 pm

                      You’re not hard left mate, you’re simply a bit left of the right wing.

                      As for the NZLP (NZ Liberal Party) winning the next election. Meh.

                    • Jackal …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:53 pm

                      First you write:

                      You may be “hard left” in personal philosophy Jackal

                      Then you write:

                      You’re not hard left mate, you’re simply a bit left of the right wing.

                      Which is a contradiction in terms again CV… Try not to do that eh!

                  • CV - Real Labour …
                    1 February 2013 at 3:06 pm

                    You’re a real smart guy jackal. Hope that works out for you.

            • Olwyn 1.2.2.2.1.3
              1 February 2013 at 9:49 am

              The fact that the likes of Hooton have decided to redefine centre-left as hard left, so as to advocate for a branded form of business as usual, does make the claim true. Rather, it presents a challenge that can readily be met with well researched centre-left policies, passion and convincing argument.

          • tracey 1.2.2.2.2
            1 February 2013 at 9:13 am

            nope “lurch to the left” is the kind of language that has kept Nats popular… whether it’s true or not is irrelevant, and sadly that is the hallmark of this government, lots of words, no truth, less action.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.3
          1 February 2013 at 9:35 am

          Are you seriously suggesting that a lurch to the hard left will have people abandoning Key and National and flocking to Labour?

          Ah, no, I’m suggesting a new left wing party which actually has left wing values will bring on board all those that didn’t vote. We’re not in an FPP electoral environment any more.

          Besides, Key has a lock on the gallery and the MSM,,

          Who cares?

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    31 January 2013 at 6:52 pm

    It’s only Labour’s fault in that they’re centre-right party, The Greens have gone centre-left thus picking up votes and, unfortunately, Mana is coming across as just another Maori Party. What we need is a real party of the left to pick up those who didn’t vote.

    • Coronial Typer 2.1
      31 January 2013 at 7:42 pm

      Disagree. It’s less about left or right branding and more about political initiative.

      Key has come back knowing he has to fire on all cylinders to get a chance at a third term.
      He is doing everything right to do that:
      – A major reshuffle
      – Taking it to Shearer’s housing policy, offloading blame onto Councils (who everyone hates)
      – A popular/ist prisons work policy
      – A small but agreeable apprenticeships policy that flat-footed everyone
      – A Novopay Ministerial inquiry with the potential to dump the whole thing
      – Going hard on Bain (bread and circuses entertainment)
      – A major media capture in Antarctica
      – Securing the Speaker and hence his own internal succession
      – Actively destroying unions and urban councils as the last bastions of progressive resistance

      And that’s all before the House legislative agenda really starts.

      Shearer has countered with no new policy, no reshuffle, and simply letting National stake out the entire years’ agenda. Good God this joint needs some leadership.

      • BM 2.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 7:56 pm

        It’s like the All blacks vs Iceland.

        • wobble 2.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 7:58 pm

          .. played on hot sand in the middle of a New Zealand summer.

          • CV - Real Labour 2.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2013 at 8:02 pm

            With the Icelandians all hungover because our alcohol is so bloody cheap here.

            • happynz 2.1.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 12:57 am

              Well, booze is cheaper in New Zealand than in Malaysia where I currently am. I wish I had the ciggie habit as tobacco is cheap here. Anyway, I was recently in the States and the price of liquor made me think, “Wow – beer, wine, and spirits are so cheap here how can people afford to stay sober?” Seriously, stuff like whiskey on the supermarket shelf is half the price of NZ duty-free.

              But I digress. Back on topic…how accurate was the Roy Morgan poll for the 2011 election?

              • Colonial Viper …
                1 February 2013 at 1:16 am

                The 4 Roy Morgans immediately before the Nov 2011 election averaged Labour at 27.0%.

                Labour got 27.48% in the General Election.

                They did massively overestimate National’s share. The average of the polls was around 53%. National got circa 47% on poll day. It’s almost like the error went straight to Winston.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                2 February 2013 at 5:54 pm

                may you bring me back a noodle canteen doll; i’m flexible and i don’t bite (either faith will be fine)

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2
        1 February 2013 at 6:55 am

        It’s less about left or right branding and more about political initiative.

        We need change which almost inevitably comes from the left (even the wrong type of change, i.e, 4th Labour govt). This Labour isn’t about to introduce those necessary changes and people know it and thus they aren’t voting for them.

      • Sue 2.1.3
        1 February 2013 at 8:21 am

        +1
        Disheartening to see it listed, but spot on

      • tracey 2.1.4
        1 February 2013 at 9:14 am

        agree, and all those measures are challengeable, especially the nonsense apprenticeship and engineering ones. Surely we need more zoologists

    • marxgirl 2.2
      31 January 2013 at 9:14 pm

      David Cunlife will help Labour be left ~ ‘a forgotten, beaten generation will not pay for the superannuation of tomorrow’

      http://cunliffe.co.nz/parliamentary-speech-debate-on-prime-ministers-statement/

    • xtasy 2.3
      1 February 2013 at 1:14 am

      DTB:

      “What we need is a real party of the left to pick up those who didn’t vote.”

      Yeah! NOW we are talking!!!

  4. George D 4
    31 January 2013 at 6:55 pm

    Z, can you check The Standard’s email?

    I’ll get someone to take a look – Zet

  5. George D 5
    31 January 2013 at 7:12 pm

    13.5% is an excellent figure for the Greens in historical context, and is the result of a lot of hard work and clever campaigning by committed members and MPs. However, with a stagnant Government and weak Labour, it’s not nearly as good as it could be.

    A genuine question: How would the Greens peel off another 4-5% off National, putting a left Government within reach? (Which puts Winston Peters out of reach).

    I have some unsolicited advice for Labour on how they might pull in another few percent, which I’ve submitted as a post. But I value the opinions of others, and I think a little constructive criticism and advice to the Greens wouldn’t go astray. The Greens will also have to fight off National this year, who’ve made attacking them their strategy for staying in government. If it works, National win a third term – it’s that simple. Luckily, the Greens have spent the last 13 years in opposition, and have a lot experience with the kind of withering attacks National will try to throw their way.

    • handle 5.1
      31 January 2013 at 7:26 pm

      Like Labour, the Greens also have to appeal to the voters who stayed home at the last election. That could be easier than prising some off the Nats.

      • CV - Real Labour 5.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 7:30 pm

        Indeed, as prising that much more off the NATs means playing up to the “centrist swing voter” like Labour is doing.

        As handle suggests, there is a good 24% of voters who stayed at home last election. TIme to turn them out.

        • Colonial Weka 5.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 8:10 pm

          “As handle suggests, there is a good 24% of voters who stayed at home last election. TIme to turn them out.”

          Does that solve the Peters problem?

          • CV - Real Labour 5.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2013 at 8:18 pm

            If Labour had turned out just 100,000 of those 800,000 people to vote Red, Goff could probably have formed a Government with Winston and the Greens.

            • Colonial Weka 5.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2013 at 8:26 pm

              Exactly, it doesn’t solve the problem of Peters. Do you consider a L/GP/Mana/NZF govt a realistic option?

              • CV - Real Labour …
                1 February 2013 at 8:42 am

                It’s realistic but also high risk. But it would require Winston to get over his ego, and want to leave a real legacy in the last part of his parliamentary career, instead of simply chasing National Party baubles.

            • indiana 5.1.1.1.1.2
              31 January 2013 at 8:31 pm

              What if the other 700k turned up and voted the Nats?..after all it was well believed that at the last election most people figured the Nats would win and didn’t need to vote, which included many Nat voters did it not?

      • George D 5.1.2
        31 January 2013 at 7:35 pm

        Great advice. I think we’re much placed to get out voters this time than we were in 2011, which itself was a massive improvement on 2008. Getting the stay-at-homes to the polls has to be a focus for the left. It’s also incredibly important in the upcoming local body elections, which the right often win not because they’re preferred but simply because their supporters vote.

        • Colonial Weka 5.1.2.1
          31 January 2013 at 8:24 pm

          It’s a really good question George D.

          In the past I would have been sceptical of the GP attracting right wing votes without major compromise, but in more recent times I see more of the talk in this link that Pascal’s Bookie posted the other day. Seems like potential there too.

          http://www.ben.geek.nz/2013/01/getting-active/

          Another important group – I hear increasing numbers of people saying they don’t vote, intentionally rather than apathetically, because they don’t want to support a basically defunct system, or they believe that central govt can’t solve our problems and it’s better not to support it. These people are often politically and socially aware, and would otherwise be voting Green. The younger ones are talking about libertarianism, which I think they are getting from the internet and international travellers in NZ (I point them in the direction of Lindsay Perigo and ACT, just to wake them the fuck up). There are also libertarian ethics emerging within movements like Transitions Towns. The GP needs to look at this trend, because we are losing some really good people, not just as voters, but as activists and potential MPs/staffers in the long term.

          • Colonial Weka 5.1.2.1.1
            31 January 2013 at 8:28 pm

            The other place the GP, or someone outside the GP perhaps, needs to focus is educating people about tactical voting. Too many people are still wasting their party vote.

          • George D 5.1.2.1.2
            31 January 2013 at 8:55 pm

            You see, I don’t think most NZers are of the right or the left.* We are. But the population has been so depoliticised and decontextualised that they are generally a floating mass. Working the population in politics is now little different to selling a film or a car.

            They’ll stick with politicians who convey attributes that humans value, and they can be mobilised for or against particular issues of salience in their lives. It’s the latter in particular that I’m excited about. The asset sales campaign is such a thing, but it must be one of many things, each of which is carefully tied each and every time to the same issuess in people’s lives.

            *Their interests are to the left, and they align with the left on most issues they’re polled on, but they don’t necessarily see themselves that way.

            • mickysavage 5.1.2.1.2.1
              31 January 2013 at 9:08 pm

              Right on George.

              Politics has been framed as a consumer choice which means that most people think that it is an exercise of consumer rights like buying a car or a TV.

              They then think “what is in it for me”. Dare I say it but Labour’s win in 2005 depended a great deal on working for families (greater resources for the middle class) and interest free student loans (greater resources for the middle class’s kids).

              The collective community sympathy is strong but man those advertisements are persuasive …

              • Jackal …
                1 February 2013 at 9:39 am

                Yes! Labour won the 2005 vote by appealing to the middle class, and you should dare to say it mickysavage.

                • CV - Real Labour …
                  1 February 2013 at 9:51 am

                  And how did that loyal middle class vote in 2008, Jackal?

                  • Jackal …
                    1 February 2013 at 10:37 am

                    That’s a bit unfair CV considering the electoral cycle and how effective the right wings negative media campaign was in painting Helen Clark in a bad light… Not to mention the campaign itself of “trust” and the failure to win the debate concerning coalition partners.

                    More to the point, did Labour appeal to the middle class voter in 2008? Just to help you along a bit CV, the answer is that Labour lost in 2008 because they didn’t appeal to the middle class, but thanks for proving my point.

            • CV - Real Labour 5.1.2.1.2.2
              31 January 2013 at 9:12 pm

              You see, I don’t think most NZers are of the right or the left.* We are. But the population has been so depoliticised and decontextualised that they are generally a floating mass.

              Hmm perhaps that “floating mass” is more a reflection of what the political parties are offering, not the attitudes of the populace, who while may not label themselves “Left” or “Right” tend to have quite clear attitudes one way or the other, on specific topics.

            • Olwyn 5.1.2.1.2.3
              31 January 2013 at 9:22 pm

              “Their interests are to the left, and they align with the left on most issues they’re polled on, but they don’t necessarily see themselves that way.”

              That is why National is advantaged by trying to look like Labour, but Labour is disadvantaged by trying to look like National. Conviction politics work best for Labour, since they inspire hope and give campaigns momentum. Think of the enthusiastic volunteers that would turn up to get South Auckland out to vote when Clark was still around. Think of Obama’s last campaign.

            • tracey 5.1.2.1.2.4
              1 February 2013 at 9:20 am

              +1

            • Rogue Trooper 5.1.2.1.2.5
              1 February 2013 at 5:21 pm

              🙂

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.1.3
            1 February 2013 at 9:46 am

            I hear increasing numbers of people saying they don’t vote, intentionally rather than apathetically, because they don’t want to support a basically defunct system,

            Which is both correct and incorrect. What we need is a party driven by the voters and not by the managers at the top and then we would be able to not only change the governing party but the governing system.

          • asd 5.1.2.1.4
            4 February 2013 at 3:37 pm

            Speaking of Lindsay Perigo and his Libertarianz Party, I always wondered if SkyTV paid him off to campaign against and get rid of the state broadcasting fee back in the 90’s so Sky could move in and take a sizable and ongoing chuck of the pay tv market here.
            Seems like a strategy that could have been very feasible and has paid off so much so that now Sky is the all conquering incumbent that dominates and dictates who watches what and how much we will be forced to pay because of the roll back of TVNZ with its free to air protections, and then imposition of neo-liberal political agendas.
            Has this idea been circulated and discussed before?

    • The Fan Club 5.2
      31 January 2013 at 8:23 pm

      Realistically George, I think the major move the Greens could make isn’t to try and peel another 4-5% off National in the polls, but to turn Green potential voters into Green voters. And that’s a lot harder.

      Otherwise, I think this is probably hitting the hard limit of Green popularity for the time being*. If you won’t back the Greens now, when would you?

      By the way “appealing to voters who didn’t vote” is one of the dumbest ideas ever, and it always gets trotted out as if the non-vote is a specific targetable voter. In general, it’s not. If you’re the Greens, don’t bother. Just focus on appealing to voters.

      * i.e. until the next election.

      • Colonial Weka 5.2.1
        31 January 2013 at 8:36 pm

        I seem to recall an election where the GP picked up an extra MP because they targeted non-voters. Wasn’t it going after the youth vote in Australia that did it one year?

        In general I think your comments seek to undermine the GP. eg there are already potential Green voters who are swing voters and who last time voted on the right (see my link above).

        “If you won’t back the Greens now, when would you?”

        How about when you get sick of NACT/Labour? Or when you get sick of Labour? Or when you are a first time voter? There is no good reason why the GP can’t build its vote, and your suggestion that it can’t comes straight out of Labour’s agenda.

        • The Fan Club 5.2.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 10:13 pm

          How on earth does it play into Labour’s nefarious agenda to suggest that the Greens get a ground game? It scares the fuck out of me personally, the prospect of a serious, on the ground Green operation, instead of the current campaign-at-40,000ft model. (And, it looks pretty much like Green Head Office agrees with me on this one…)

          Likewise, hey, if I wanted the Greens to waste their time trying to write policy/message in order to convince 35 year old Dave of Mt Eden, who hasn’t ever voted, that he should start voting this time, sure, go for it. Not likely to happen though is it?

          Even when we look at the drop-off of voters, most of those voted for the major parties last time, and will likely return there. Good luck, but I don’t think strategically it’s a great idea.

          • Colonial Weka 5.2.1.1.1
            31 January 2013 at 10:37 pm

            Just a feeling I have about your comments. Your concern for the Greens has Labour written all over it (ie your suggestions are all about the undermining).

            • The Fan Club 5.2.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2013 at 10:46 pm

              Well yes I am obviously a member of the Labour Party and obviously I think the Greens are not as awesome a thing as Labour (otherwise I’d be a member of the Greens.) But I do want the Greens to do well. And I think there’s something pretty revealing when any debate or disagreement is automatically secret-agenda territory.

    • toad 5.3
      31 January 2013 at 8:35 pm

      The Nats attacking the Greens worked a treat in 1999 – got the Greens media coverage, and raised the Green vote from 2% to over the 5% threshold during the campaign.

      Now the Greens are polling mid-teens, I say bring it on. 15%, or given Labour’s epic fail, maybe 20%.

    • Jenny 5.4
      31 January 2013 at 11:45 pm

      A genuine question: How would the Greens peel off another 4-5% off National, putting a left Government within reach?

      George D

      My idea is that the Green Party announce a campaign to abolish the unloved Emissions Trading Scheme, to wide acclaim.

      And explain why

      Sound crazy?

      Read the transcript of this debate in parliament between John Key and Russel Norman on the government’s climate change policies

      Climate Change Policy—Government Priorities

      A very good effort from Russel Norman.

      However Key tried to shut down the debate by threatening Norman. What did he threaten him with?

      When Norman was taking the government to task for their record on climate change – Key threatened to skewer Norman over the widely unpopular Emissions Trading Scheme.

      Let us have that debate when we are on TV in those debates talking about how the Green Party is going to force New Zealand consumers to pay a truckload more money every single week, and let us see whether New Zealand consumers like it. If they do, good luck; you will be Minister of Finance.

      Rt Hon JOHN KEY Questions for oral answer, 30 Janurary 2013

      I think it is time to call John Key’s bluff.

      The fact of the matter is that the Pollution Trading Scheme, as it should more accurately be named, is a Labour Party and National Government supported scheme to let the polluters off the hook. If I remember the debate properly, (and I do), at the time the Green Party had severe reservations about the PTS. Reservations that in hindsight have been proved correct.

      Now is the perfect time to rip the veil off, and expose those who really support this dirty rip off scheme.

      If this is not done now, and if, the climate debate comes up in the election campaign Key will use the Pollution Trading Scheme to flay the Green Party, of this there can be little doubt.

      To head Key off the Green Party need to act, and act now and answer fire with fire.

      The Nats need to exposed for being fully behind this scheme, that lets polluters off the hook. And dumps the bill on the taxpayers.

      I call on the Green Party to put up private members bill calling for the complete repeal of the falsely named, Emissions Trading Scheme with a full explanation of where it is failing us.

      This will lead to a real debate in parliament on how to concretely cut back on our CO2 emissions. As John Key showed with his threat, this debate is being held back though the use of this phoney scheme.

      Let’s make New Zealand free to discuss becoming a shining example to the world.

      My proposed bill:

      The Green Party calls on parliament to completely abolish the Emissions Trading Scheme. the purpose of this bill to clear the ground for parliament to discuss a more proper and equable way to concretely cut our CO2 emissions.

      Let’s have this debate in parliament. Right here. Right now, and later unhindered, during the elections. And without this terrible charade, clouding the issue.

      Whether it is the National Party, or Labour Party version of the Pollution Trading Scheme, both versions permit Business As Usual to carry on unhindered. (Which was the intention).

      In my opinion such an initiative if taken up by the Green Party caucus will earn them banner headlines in the media and the respect of all sections of society. (Except the fossil fuel industry barons, who love this scheme.)

      To win the debate on climate change the Green Party need to get rid of this dead albatross that the Labour and National Parties have draped around their necks.

      Will the Greens rise to the challenge and expose this dirty scheme?

      Would I be wrong in thinking that this will gain the Green Party massive publicity and public support?

      Would I be wrong in thinking that it will cost the National Party dearly if they try and prop up this failing scheme?

      • Jenny 5.4.1
        1 February 2013 at 12:33 am

        This message to President Obama to start the “Climate Conversation Now”, could equally apply to the New Zealand Green Party

        The Nation, reprinted by Common Dreams

        If ever there was a time for a president to lead a national conversation on climate change—to connect the dots between these destructive weather events and the government, corporate and consumer practices that need to change if our children are to inherit a livable planet, that time is …well, it’s come and gone numerous times already. You had a golden opportunity to make the case last year, when this nasty weather was actually taking place, tormenting Americans from Boston to Biloxi, Dallas to Des Moines. Unfortunately, you remained all but silent about climate change throughout the 2012 campaign. That grievous error, however, is all the more reason for you to honor your pledge and put the full force of your presidency behind this mission, starting now.

        Mark Hertsgaard Environental reporter for The Nation

        Like Obama in 2012, it is a fact that the Green Party played down climate change in 2011 because they thought it would cost them votes. It is also a fact that the Green Party plan to follow the same course again in 2014.

        Like the writer of the above plea to President Obama, I think for the Green Party to follow such a course again would be a “grievous error”.

        • Colonial Viper 5.4.1.1
          1 February 2013 at 12:46 am

          Americans won’t accept drops in their living standard and energy consumption unless they are perceived as being their own fault. If it’s mandated by the Federal Government, there’ll be a revolution.

          To win the debate on climate change the Green Party need to

          There is no debate on climate change in NZ politics (excepting your inputs).

          • Jenny 5.4.1.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 1:23 am

            The American people accepted big drops in their energy consumption and living standards to fight the Second World War.
            \
            Their leaders particularly Roosevelt explained to them the need and called on them to make the necessary sacrifices. Which they did willingly many even making the ultimate sacrifice.

            You keep claiming that people wouldn’t do that now, why?

            You have also claimed that it is a politicians role to follow not lead.

            This is just so patently wrong as to be absurd.

            There is no climate debate in New Zealand except my inputs?

            Well not anymore.

            • CV - Real Labour 5.4.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 1:31 am

              Bullshit. The American people were conned into the second world war. Popular opinion and congressional opinion was dead set AGAINST the US entering the war.

              I find it laughable that you use the example of the second world war to prove your point around ‘sacrifice’ when the war itself was nothing but a massive wasteful destructive expenditure of oil and coal resources.

              You have also claimed that it is a politicians role to follow not lead.

              This is just so patently wrong as to be absurd.

              Sure, you’re the hot shot political analyst, whatever you say.

              • Paul Bailey …
                1 February 2013 at 7:57 am

                BS – The USA wasn’t conned in to WWII, it was attacked by Japan (Pearl Harbour) and Hitler declared war on them. I agree that 7 Dec 1941 was a game changer in in before that date there was a strong isolationist movement in congress but Rosevelts decleration of war against Japan was unanmiously endorsed by by houses. Hardly conned.

                • tracey …
                  1 February 2013 at 9:26 am

                  The US acted out of self interest in WWI and WWII but that is hardly unique tot hem.

                  Stop assuming the “people” of the US are the same as their politicians or top 1%.

                • CV - Real Labour …
                  1 February 2013 at 9:45 am

                  The US government had been forcing a deteriorating diplomatic and economic relationship with Japan for many months before the Pearl Harbour attack. The energy embargo applied by the US gave Japanese military hard-liners and their industrial supporters all the leverage they needed to push their country into war.

                  As for Germany’s declaration of war against the US…yep, but the US had been sending men and materiel to England for use in fighting the Germans a long time before that.

                  • CV - Real Labour …
                    1 February 2013 at 9:54 am

                    I should add that a lot of British and American industrialists made a lot of money helping Germany build its war machine. Funny how that works.

              • Jenny …
                1 February 2013 at 8:43 pm

                The American people were conned into the second world war. Popular opinion and congressional opinion was dead set AGAINST the US entering the war.

                CV – Real Labour

                How does this square with your earlier statement that politicians are not leaders. And that Politicians haven’t got the power to avert climate change.

                If politicians had the power to persuade the entire American people into fighting a war against fascism.

                How come some 60 years later they have lost the power to lead a fight against climate change?

        • karol 5.4.1.2
          1 February 2013 at 9:40 am

          The Green Party has started 2013 putting climate change firmly on their agenda: in Metiria Turei’s speech in the debate on the PM’s statement earlier this week, and in Russel Norman’s first question of the years to the PM in question time this week.

          It’s a question of strategy. The Greens are all ready smeared as “whacky”, “unrealistic” etc. The Green Party Climate Change Policy clearly states they don’t like the ETS, but, given that it is the governments’ (Labour and National) preferred strategy, they will aim to make it as good as it can be, given it’s limitations.

          I am likely to party vote Green in the next election. However, they still seem a bit focused on the capitalist economy for my liking (eg, wanting to put a price on carbon). From their policy:

          3. Carbon Markets
          The Green Party believes that putting a price on greenhouse gases is desirable to reduce emissions, as well as to incentivise energy efficiency and renewables. Our strong first preference is for a carbon charge, recycled into income tax reduction for all taxpayers, and into funding carbon abatement. However there is currently little chance of this happening in NZ, so we will work to improve the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) put forward by successive Governments.

          • Jenny 5.4.1.2.1
            1 February 2013 at 9:26 pm

            The Green Party has started 2013 putting climate change firmly on their agenda: in Metiria Turei’s speech in the debate on the PM’s statement earlier this week, and in Russel Norman’s first question of the years to the PM in question time this week.

            karol

            Turia’s speech was great, three good mentions of the words “climate change”. And the first one was the best.

            “And let’s not forget about climate change”.

            Metiria Turei

            Let’s hope that the Green Party take Turei’s admonition to heart, and update their web site. And make climate change, not one of their 59 “Other issues“, but one of their “Priorities“.

            Hopefully, as well as being over social justice issues the Green Party will ensure that the 2014 elections will be fought over climate change as well.

            If it is not.

            As Naomi Kleine warns us:

            Climate change has the ability to undo your historic victories and crush your present struggles.

            Naomi Kleine “I’d Rather Fight Like Hell”

      • tracey 5.4.2
        1 February 2013 at 9:25 am

        As national attacks the Greens with words like “wacky” and “funny money” and “print money” in the campaign those who dont want to vote national and are leaning toward Green (instead of labour) will buy the bluster consciously or otherwise. I agree the greens need some smart maneuvering and pithy retorts. Such as the printing money jibes countered with

        David Cameron and Obama don’t seem to be heeding Mr key’s advice… or whatever.

      • Jackal 5.4.3
        1 February 2013 at 10:00 am

        Jenny

        Key will use the Pollution Trading Scheme to flay the Green Party.

        Key will use the fact that National has mismanaged the Emissions Trading Scheme so that it’s now entirely ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions to attack the Greens? Sounds a bit crazy all right Jenny.

        The ETS doesn’t need to be scrapped, it needs to be changed so that it inhibits the ability of polluting industries to continue to pollute. Only a financial mechanism can do that Jenny, and that’s what the ETS is.

        The fact that National has changed the scheme so that it effectively subsidizes polluting industries with tax payer money to continue to pollute also needs to be highlighted.

      • handle 5.4.4
        1 February 2013 at 11:50 am

        “Would I be wrong in thinking that this will gain the Green Party massive publicity and public support?”

        Yes.

      • George D 5.4.5
        1 February 2013 at 12:25 pm

        Jenny, there’s a lot of internal debate in the party at the moment about how we replace/update the flawed scheme.

        I think climate will be one of the campaigns the Greens run between now and the next election, and it will have a specific focus.

    • Jackal 5.5
      1 February 2013 at 9:49 am

      George D

      A genuine question: How would the Greens peel off another 4-5% off National, putting a left Government within reach? (Which puts Winston Peters out of reach).

      Good question George D…

      First they would need to win the debate on financial matters. The Greens need to show that their plans for a cleaner and greener New Zealand are also beneficial. Despite their best efforts to ignore Nationals taunts and disinformation, it was very effective at solidifying support away from the Greens. Many now won’t even give the Greens time explain how their policies work. So a to the point campaign concerning how Greens policy will benefit the economy, because finances is always the biggest issue.

      The Greens also need to mobilize on the ground more. As people have noted the largest group of non-voters are those who have been marginalized into poverty. The Greens policies actively target such social dysfunction and will create a more equal society. However the problem is that such a target group in the most part isn’t aware that their lives will improve when the Greens are in government.

      That’s in fact one of the main advantages the right wing currently has, because the more people they can ensure don’t vote by increasing hardship, the more likely they’re to be reelected. National has also ensured that impoverished people are less likely to be informed by implementing broadcasting changes to our television system, whereby people have to spend money to be able to be informed.

      Poor people simply don’t have the money to spend on new satellite dishes and receivers and along with a biased news service, such social engineering will ensure there are less people going to the polls. Generally it will be those people who have been further marginalized by Nationals policies that don’t vote.

      Continuing with their internet presence and an increase of community based activism will counter the right wings repressive measures to keep people ignorant.

      If you won’t back the Greens now, when would you?

      Perhaps when the effects of climate change really start to kick in and New Zealand gets hammered. Most people aren’t willfully ignorant about such matters, instead they’re taught to be ignorant. Such ignorance will disappear when New Zealand receives some of what other countries have been experiencing. Even National might actually work towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions instead of just paying lip service to the problem, but by the time they do, the Greens would have gained support by having a strong environmental track record.

      Otherwise I think the Greens just need to do what they’ve already been doing.

  6. ScottGN 6
    31 January 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Take a deep breathe. Roy Morgan says, like it has said for the last 6 months or so, that the election is too close to call.

    • wobble 6.1
      31 January 2013 at 7:21 pm

      But that’s predicated on the unlikely scenario of a Lab/Gre/NZF coalition. Let’s face it, Winston will go with the Nats if he can form a simple majority with them.

      Labour needs to be polling 38%+ to have a sure shot at government.

      • CV - Real Labour 6.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 7:25 pm

        38%? That sounds about right. But then you have to factor this in: a big Labour move from 31.5% to 38% is going to suck some life out of the Greens.

        If they drop from 13.5% back to 10.5%, where the hell is Labour going to turn?

        • George D 6.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 7:32 pm

          38% + 10.5% = 48.5%. Add to that the usual 2-3% boost that Labour usually gets from undersampling of their voters, and you’ve got a simple majority. Even with record low turnout and a disempowered electorate last time around, that still held true. If Labour gets it together, it will be at least as true this time around. Even if you’re on 49%, you could probably stitch together a coalition with Mana, who are likely to have two MPs and to cause a slight overhang. Harawira is a much safer coalition partner than Peters – really.

          The wasted vote from non-threshold parties is usually 2-3%, but that’s no help as it will be allocated to all parties according to their share of the vote.

          • CV - Real Labour 6.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2013 at 7:37 pm

            Yep that’s fair. So the main task here is to shift Labour off this 31.5% baseline.

            Because today 31.5% Labour + 13.5% Greens + 2% opinion poll underestimation for Labour = just 47%.

            Then take off 1% from the Greens for their opinion poll underestimation and you are left with just 46%.

            Not enough.

          • handle 6.1.1.1.2
            31 January 2013 at 7:40 pm

            A rabid dingo is a safer partner than Peters.

        • ScottGN 6.1.1.2
          31 January 2013 at 7:36 pm

          If Labour get 38% plus Greens at 10.5% (your numbers) then that will likely deliver a Labour/Greens majority govt.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2
        1 February 2013 at 10:19 am

        Let’s face it, Winston will go with the Nats if he can form a simple majority with them.

        IMO, I don’t think he will. Last time he tried that he and his party got seriously mauled and the fact is that most of his supporters are looking for what National used to be which really is a hell of a lot closer to what Labour is today.

        • CV - Real Labour 6.1.2.1
          1 February 2013 at 10:22 am

          what National used to be which really is a hell of a lot closer to what Labour is today.

          Pretty much, sadly.

  7. CV - Real Labour 7
    31 January 2013 at 7:18 pm

    Here’s another damning fact from the Roy Morgan: confidence in the Key Government is up to levels last seen in Feb 2012 with 57% saying the country is headed in the right direction (who the fuck are these people???). Forget the last year of Labour leadership, its gotten no traction whatsoever.

    • Andre 7.1
      31 January 2013 at 7:24 pm

      People on beach not connected just a blip?

      • CV - Real Labour 7.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 7:25 pm

        Labour better hope its just the optimism of holidays and sunshine.

        • Coronial Typer 7.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 7:35 pm

          No one needs to hope.
          Politicians need to do their job.
          Labour’s political leadership needs to be as generous as the Greens were on Saturday, and invite every progressive force in the country to unite. That also means uniting Labour’s own caucus and membership together, with a real primary vote that electrifies the base.

          The Greens and Labour need to shake hands in public; Labour would look more generous, the Greens would look more serious. Government simply cannot change unless these two work together, now and in the future.

          It would also have the secondary consequence of putting the wooden stake through the Dracula Peters.

    • infused 7.2
      31 January 2013 at 7:34 pm

      Ever considered they are right? Of course not.

      • CV - Real Labour 7.2.1
        31 January 2013 at 7:43 pm

        Right about what? Making the country poorer, or making poor people poorer? Or both?

      • The Al1en 7.2.2
        31 January 2013 at 7:46 pm

        Of course, part of the thought process an all, but then compassion, tolerance, understanding and human justice kick back in and then I’m back at no, they’re shit.

      • felixviper 7.2.3
        1 February 2013 at 6:55 am

        “Ever considered they are right?” – confused

        It doesn’t matter if you or I consider them right, all the evidence says they’re wrong.

      • tracey 7.2.4
        1 February 2013 at 9:27 am

        what direction are we headed in?

    • blue leopard 7.3
      31 January 2013 at 7:36 pm

      “(who the fuck are these people???).” ~CV

      Good question

    • Dr Terry 7.4
      1 February 2013 at 10:05 am

      Maybe this is a country of sadists? Hurt us some more, oh please we want so much for you to hurt us more! Should Key run extermination camps (well, perhaps he is close to that already!) I expect he would become ever more popular. Remember Hitler’s (as I can) vast popularity over very many years – the German people really thought he was their “saviour”. New Zealanders are determinedly awaiting their own saviour to conquer in the end.

  8. VivaciousViper 8
    31 January 2013 at 7:43 pm

    Sigh, when are the caucus going to get it ? the caucus f—-d up,why the hell don’t they
    just admit it,allow a leadership vote,accept the outcome and act in accordance with
    the members etc vote,don’t derail it,don’t install a caucus favourite again,simple,
    the wider public don’t accept labour or the current leadership,doing nothing or
    more of the same and the result will be 22%-27% in 2014.
    Labour could build a gold temple,it still wont
    change the way the voters think about the meat in the sandwich of the labour party re:the inner workings.

    • Jackal 8.1
      1 February 2013 at 10:22 am

      Don’t have a nomination that the caucus supports… WTF are you on about VivaciousViper? There will always be members who don’t agree with the choice of David Shearer, even with a membership wide vote of which the outcome is assured. So why waste time and resources on a forgone conclusion? That’s not to say that membership shouldn’t get a say sometime in the future, but presently it’s not required.

      I think you guys should work on the anti-Shearer template a bit… It’s wearing thin.

      • CV - Real Labour 8.1.1
        1 February 2013 at 10:24 am

        So why waste time and resources on a forgone conclusion?

        Seeking democratic confirmation from across the membership and affiliates to go into 2014 with unity and energy is a “waste” of “time and resources”?

        Mmmmm, okay.

  9. hush minx 9
    31 January 2013 at 7:53 pm

    And who will the Labour leadership blame for this lapse in polling trend (or so they would wish to see it?). The disaffected non Labour left of course (that’s us btw). It’s not about them and their stumbles (can you imagine the greens running that housing story of Helen was in charge?). Even Vernon small called the start of the year as nationals. Sigh. Can’t we just have a vote please?

  10. bad12 10
    31 January 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Slippery loves Roy Morgan every time Roy’s name is said He goes all hot and sweaty, Slippery wishes that Roy Morgan were conducting internal polls for the National Party which at the moment are just so depressing for Him,

    Part of Slippery’s love affair with Roy is that they are both such ly-errrr in bed blokes on a Sunday, all the main stream polls ALL THE TIME read Nationals support from the top side of the mrginof error and Labour’s from the bottom side of the margin,

    If Roy is to be believed NZFirst is this – far from not attaining the 5% thresh-hold required for seats in the Parliament and the National Government now relies on 2 votes from Party’s that may not exist in the Parliament next time round, or, 3 votes from the Maori party which i am willing to bet this far out from 2014 will have only one MP left and considering what was said recently at Ratana Pa i think my view of the Maori Party might be way too generous,

    Too close to call says Roy and i tend to agree that it will be thus until election night 2014, BUT, the momentum lies with the Labour/Green bloc in the Parliament,

    I would suggest on the basis that i like to stick my neck out there that Nationals support is closer to 43% and Labour’s closer to 34%,

    The fun as they say has just begun…

  11. gobsmacked 11
    31 January 2013 at 8:00 pm

    I don’t really believe in Hekia’s karma thing, but sometimes I’d love to know what John Key did in a previous life. The greatest gift any politician can receive is to be lucky with their opponents … and Key must be the luckiest since Bill Clinton was given Bob Dole by the Republicans back in 96.

    There must be a few old Nats (Shipley, Brash, and English still there) thinking “Why couldn’t I have had David Shearer? Why, God? Why?”.

  12. Mike 12
    31 January 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Another poll taken in the holiday season and another over-reaction…
    Sure, come February and all the major polls have re-started and are showing the same trend you may have a point, but until then calm the f down

    • wobble 12.1
      31 January 2013 at 8:05 pm

      As zet says, how do you explain the last four years then?

      • CV - Real Labour 12.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 8:10 pm

        Last January, Labour was climbing up the Roy Morgan pretty strongly. Same time of year, same holiday season.

        Of course, that was off the back of the first ever Labour Leadership Primary, a process which captured the imagination of a nation.

        Maybe that had something to do with it?

        • McFlock 12.1.1.1
          1 February 2013 at 2:14 am

          Last January, Labour was climbing up the Roy Morgan pretty strongly. Same time of year, same holiday season.

          No they weren’t.

          They started at the same level as at 2011 election (maybe an RM methodology correction?) and had one datapoint jump of 3%. Which made up the ground they’d lost during the election campaign. By that logic they were going “pretty strongly” in april-may last year, too (after what would be described by that measure as “a terrible tragedy”).

          They closed the year 6 points higher than their January start point, which by the same logic would be “unimpressive, but solid”. But it would be pretty close to the required level going into an election year if they can repeat it.

          • CV - Real Labour 12.1.1.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 10:07 am

            Dunno what you’re on about. Labour climbed over 4 or 5 points between the start of the holiday period Dec 2011 to early Feb 2012.

            In fact, Labour is today, exactly where they were 12 months ago.

            • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 12:45 pm

              December 2011? Roy Morgan’s last 2011 polls, according to their website (linked in the post), was the day before the 2011 election. Labour got 23.5%.

              27.5% in the election, so it either rose 4% in a week or there was a significant error in the 23% result.

              The January 2012 polls were 27.5% and 30.5%. That’s 3%, which is where I’m coming from.

              What you seem to be overlooking is that Labour might be getting the same number of 31-33% results over the last few months as in the start of 2012, but there are fewer of the =<29% results. In the monitoring trade, this is what we call a "gradual shift in the average". It's not a sudden shift like we'd see if Jesus ran in Waitakere, but it's not exactly the same position as before.

              • CV - Real Labour …
                1 February 2013 at 12:56 pm

                You want to cut the upward trend off in January 2012 when in fact it continues through to the end of Feb 2012, fine.

                My point is simple: the Summer holidays ain’t an excuse for Labour’s poor performance over the similar polling period in 2013, because in the previous summer holidays Labour gained strongly.

                In the monitoring trade, this is what we call a “gradual shift in the average”.

                yeah it’s shifing back closer to the average of 2009, 2010 and 2011 under Goff. Are you saying that is progress?

                • McFlock …
                  1 February 2013 at 1:19 pm

                  Ah, so you’re comparing the trend to the end of february 2012 with the same period in 2013? Good to know…

                  And in other previous holidays, labour lost dismally or at best stayed at the same level.

                  Um – you did see that run of five consecutive sub-30% datapoints under Goff during the election campaign, didn’t you? Yes, Labour’s definitely made progress from that.

                  • fenderviper …
                    1 February 2013 at 1:26 pm

                    I’ve always had great respect for your comments McFlock but this horse you’re backing is lame 🙂

                  • CV - Real Labour …
                    1 February 2013 at 1:29 pm

                    Of course, there were special circumstances in the previous summer holiday of of Jan 2012 – the public loved the idea of the Labour Leadership Primary, and it gave the party a real boost compared to other similar holiday periods.

                    Um – you did see that run of five consecutive sub-30% datapoints under Goff during the election campaign, didn’t you? Yes, Labour’s definitely made progress from that.

                    And hopefully Labour under Shearer will get back up to the multiple 35%, 36% datapoints that Goff managed to achieve within 18 months of him taking the Leadership.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 February 2013 at 1:55 pm

                      And hopefully Labour under Shearer will get back up to the multiple 35%, 36% datapoints that Goff managed to achieve within 18 months of him taking the Leadership.

                      Sorry, which ones?

                      Goff became leader in november 2008.I see a 36.5% in September 2012, and a 35% in the following december and february (let me know if I missed any). That’s it. He didn’t achieve “multiple” for over 2 years. And that was from a 34% election result in 2008, not the 27.5% Shearer started with.

                      But then I guess you can’t roll shearer in turds if you don’t roll goff in just a little bit of glitter.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:01 pm

                      shitballs. sept 2010

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:08 pm

                      So what’s the conclusion McFlock? Steady as she goes, the outlook is good, and 31.5% is a good step higher than polling before and at the 2011 election?

                      Let’s go with that.

                      By the way those 35% and 36% datapoints that Goff had? Labour lost 8% from those levels when National finally put on its campaigning boots.

                      Just out of interest, what’s 31.5% minus 8%?

                    • McFlock …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:29 pm

                      So you’re making the call that Labour under shearer will go down to 23.5% again? Brave call, that.

                      My position is: at the moment shearer is solid. He was left with a shitbiscuit, and now has a mud pie. His 2012 started lower and finished better than goff’s 2009. More importantly, the entire tory coalition now is too close to call – at the end of 2009, national were on 54% alone. Maori party without Turia might consider going with labour (remerger with mana or not). 12 months ago the situation was tighter than 2009, but still in nact favour.

                      All that considered, my conclusion is that the outlook is solid. I think you guys are overanalysing things (like assuming a dec-feb trend off a dec-jan sample of 3 datapoints) and really just need to not get so worked up. It is what it is, and panic just leads you to overstate the calamity and ignore the positives.

                      The big lesson from goff’s leadership is to not fuck up the campaign. You can see it in the chart. It might be “show me the money”, or the RWC, or the teapot distraction, or whatever – what got labour to 27.5% was the campaign from july 2011, not the jan 2009 poll results.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:32 pm

                      The big lesson from goff’s leadership is to not fuck up the campaign. You can see it in the chart. It might be “show me the money”, or the RWC, or the teapot distraction, or whatever

                      Or the TV debates.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:39 pm

                      possibly, possibly.

                      And as we all know, inventing abusive names and losing no opportunity to call folk dull tools of a cabal or demand they lose their jobs is an excellent way of motivating people to follow constructive advice for training and skills development. I think Dale Carnegie devoted an entire chapter to the technique. /sarc

    • gobsmacked 12.2
      31 January 2013 at 8:13 pm

      I really dislike being told to “calm down” (or its sibling, “don’t panic”) when nobody is doing anything except saying 2 + 2 = 4. This is not emotional, it is entirely rational.

      Labour are failing. This is an observable fact. It is not an “over-reaction”. It is the evidence of eyes, ears and a functioning brain. To think otherwise you would need to be blinkered, stupid, or paid.

      When Shearer goes “flubbywubbyflibbywobb” in the first election debate, may we say so? Or would that be an “over-reaction”?

      • CV - Real Labour 12.2.1
        31 January 2013 at 8:22 pm

        Patience mate. He’ll get the hang of it by the 2nd debate, you’ll see.

      • mickysavage 12.2.2
        31 January 2013 at 8:26 pm

        After 4 long years and especially after the last 12 months I would have expected to have seen an improvement. I cannot see it. I think Labour needs to reconsider things.

      • QoT 12.2.3
        31 January 2013 at 9:37 pm

        When Shearer goes “flubbywubbyflibbywobb” in the first election debate, may we say so? Or would that be an “over-reaction”?

        Nah, it’ll be all David Cunliffe’s fault for not giving him the right numbers.

  13. James 13
    31 January 2013 at 8:23 pm

    A quick and easy way to bump up at least another 5%

    National Super

    Currently the following people are eligible to receive the maximum entitlement under NS

    – People who are younger than 65 years old who are married to someone aged 65 and over
    – Anyone over the age of 65 who is in any type of employment.
    Eg: Pita Sharples is 71 and is getting both his Parliamentary Salary AND his National Super.
    Jim Anderton OTH is not claiming his national super due to his Parliamentary Pension being more generous. Good on you Jim.

    – People aged 65 and over who have ordinarily been resident in New Zealand for 5 years. There is no requirement for them to be Citizens, just residents

    – NZers who have lived overseas for the majority of their lives coming home at 65 and claiming NS immediately.

    There are very few restrictions on National Super.

    Some thoughts to reduce the upcoming bulge in the bill, and get people thinking about it.

    – Restrict NS to people aged 65 and over only. There is no reason why an (employed) 45 year old partner of a 66 year old should be able to claim NS.

    – Remove the ability for residents to claim NS after they have been living here for 5 years. Simply make it requirement that they must be a NZ Citizen.

    – Remove the ability for Citizens who have not paid taxes in NZ for at least the previous 10 years to be subject to a mandatory 10 year stand down period thus making their eligibility 75.

    – Restrict NS to be paid only to those who do not earn the maximum NS amount. For example, a married couple are entitled to 268.40(ea) If the income earned each week is less than that, the NS payment amount will be a “top up” to ensure that superannuitants are no worse off or better off than their peers who are also claiming NS.

    This means that those married couples aged 65+ who are both earning more than $50K p/a (and thus keeping a younger person out of a job) will not be able to claim the extra 14K nett from NS.

    People by the age of 65 should be relatively cash/asset rich. There’s little reason for them to have to have humungous houses.

    Alternatively, increase the age of entitlement to 70, with all the above restrictions applied.

    The previous discussions have all been around the AGE of eligibility with very little thought given to who is actually claiming the super.

    It’s time for a rational debate on who should be entitled, rather than just the age of entitlement. Simplistic solutions tend to paradoxical problems.

    • The Fan Club 13.1
      31 January 2013 at 8:28 pm

      James you get to be a citizen after five years residence. Making people be citizens to get NS won’t save any significant money. (Also in general in NZ for public policy reasons (i.e not being dickish) we tie things to residence + time, not citizenship.)

      The rest of your proposals are equally out of touch.

      [Which, to be fair, is not unique to you. Most of the stuff people are proposing in this thread is terrible strategy.]

      • James 13.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 8:35 pm

        Out of Touch?

        With what? Economic realities?
        The fact that in the next 14 years (that’s right, not 20 anymore) we’re about to experience the biggest boom in NS which will not be at all funded on the current levels of working age units available.

        Yes, Units. Remember the economic orthodoxy of the present climate doesn’t seem them as people.

        How is it fair or equitable that people in paid employment earning sufficient income categorised as 50K+ are able to also claim NS?

        Wouldn’t it be a more just that they wait till they’re no longer in paid employment to claim NS. At least this would have the flow on effect of providing jobs down the ranks.

        And people still have to apply for citizenship, it’s not granted automatically. Residents can still claim for NS so my point remains.

        You seem to come across as another neo lib having a wank job in the Shearer Marionette and the Madrigals Glee club.

        • geoff 13.1.1.1
          1 February 2013 at 8:44 am

          I’d like to see the economic analysis for means testing scenarios. I think there must be many +65ers who would be quite comfortable without super and a gold card.

          I don’t agree with lifting the retirement age though. There are many people whose occupations mean their bodies are thoroughly worn out by age 65. I presume the only advantage of raising the age of eligibility is that it is a much simpler system to implement than means testing.

          • CV - Real Labour 13.1.1.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 8:47 am

            There’s plenty of options, but at the end of the day the Super age needs to be dropped not increased.

            Older workers need to exit the workforce earlier, so that younger workers can get jons.

            • rosy 13.1.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 8:58 am

              Just thinking…. How is the working age population going to change? We’ll have more older dependents but fewer under 15s? More to spend on healthcare, less on education? More on super less on childcare?

              The balance, I guess is still bad for the percentage of working pop to retired, and healthcare is more expensive than education, but working pop to dependents might not be as bad as it seems (admittedly still problematic).

              The first step to make it fairer might be to disallow super to working people – one or the other, not both.

              • CV - Real Labour …
                1 February 2013 at 9:58 am

                Older people have many great non-capitalist roles they can play in our society, passing on life skills, as mentors, being involved in extended family, getting involved in community groups and other non-commercial activities.

                • rosy …
                  1 February 2013 at 10:16 am

                  True enough, but like motherhood, these roles are not really valued in society. It’s paid works as an expression of identity that needs to change before the traditional life skills roles can be seen as valuable to society, desirable for the older person and necessary for the recipients.

                  • CV - Real Labour …
                    1 February 2013 at 10:18 am

                    Yep. The only roles respected in society nowadays are those that make more money for the capitalists.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 February 2013 at 1:53 pm

                      Older workers need to exit the workforce earlier, so that younger workers can get jobs.

                      Are you arguing for a lowering of the age of Super to 50? Or by ‘non-capitalist’ do you mean ‘unpaid’?

                      And if the age of retirement is to be raised to 70, while anyone over the age of 50 will tell you they experience extreme discrimination in the job market … all that will happen is that instead of receiving Superannuation they’ll be on the dole.

                      For 20 years or so….

                    • Blue …
                      1 February 2013 at 2:18 pm

                      ” The only roles respected in society nowadays are those that make more money for the capitalists”

                      Clearly you live in a vaccum. Teachers, Doctors, Engineers, Police, Armed Services, Care workers and Nurses (there are too numerous to name) are hardly in it for the money and most normal thinking people respect and value them and what they do for our society and communities.

                      So to say the “only” roles that get respect are the ones that generate money for business is unadulterated horseshit.

                    • CV - Real Labour …
                      1 February 2013 at 6:04 pm

                      RL – non-capitalist means forms and structures of work not designed with the objective of making a return on capital for asset owners and shareholders. This might include volunteer work for a charitable organisation, paid work for a not-for-profit NGO etc.

                      Blue – you’d like to think those professions are respected, wouldn’t you? And they are, by most individuals. But not by our economic and financial system. Not by National and a good chunk of their core supporters. Not by a macroeconomic system which lets our industry wither so that engineers and tradies lose jobs and incomes, and where too many of our best doctors, nurses and academic staff head overseas for far better paying jobs and professional conditions, where our defence forces are stripped of capabilities and “civilianised”, and where we can’t be bothered to pay our teachers straight.

                      So while I appreciate the sentiment of ‘respect’, the reality is somewhat different; it’s not the artist or poet we hold up high and sustain, but the banker and the speculator.

              • James …
                1 February 2013 at 7:16 pm

                Without having an updated or current census to work on, its hard to foresee.

                My guess is that due to climate change we’ll be the lifeboat for disaffected islanders coming here which due to their propensity for not using prophylactics will see a corresponding baby boom (sign at the 7’s = “these brothers don’t need no rubbers” great advertisement for walking HIV drongos)

                A corresponding boom will see more poverty with the corresponding lack of social structures and poor integration into understanding the legalities of living in this once great country.

                Disallow super to anyone that is currently in paid employment. Boom, $25million p/a saved right there.

                • fatty …
                  2 February 2013 at 10:03 am

                  Disallow super to anyone that is currently in paid employment. Boom, $25million p/a saved right there.

                  James,

                  A few comments above you label The Fan Club as being “another neo lib having a wank job in the Shearer Marionette and the Madrigals Glee club.”

                  Although that is a witty accusation, unfortunately, it is you who is pushing the neoliberal agenda.
                  You are wanting to change superannuation from being universal, to being targeted. This is often termed as being institutional welfare vs residual welfare. Paul Spicker notes that one of the key outcomes of using institutional welfare is a reduction of stigma, or as Rosy has already similarly pointed out below, it is less divisive. Spicker warns us not to assume that institutional welfare is morally superior – I think some of our targeted welfare that falls within biculturalism is OK, but targeted welfare outside of NZ’s historical injustices is questionable.
                  We should resist reducing superannuation to a neoliberal, targeted benefit. In NZ, our universal superannuation is the best part of our welfare system. Targeted welfare is done to children – 270,000 in poverty! Let’s not do that to our older population. This clip shows how our institutional superannuation policies have been effective, but our residual policies towards children have failed, and continue to fail our younger generations.
                  We are world leaders when it comes to keeping our older people out of poverty…we are also world leaders at keeping young people in poverty. The reason for this is our over 65’s get universal welfare, whereas our young are victims of targeted welfare.
                  Karol below calls for universal super, and then taxes on top. That is what should be done. Labour’s call to have our older people subjected to targeted walfare at the last election is a sign of how neoliberal they are. “Making the tough calls, blah blah blah”. In reality, Labour have failed to make the tough calls since the 1980s – Labour are too scared to front up and call for tax increases…that is the problem, not the universal nature of superannuation.

          • karol 13.1.1.1.2
            1 February 2013 at 9:03 am

            Universal benefits are always easier and more cost effective to administer in the long run. With targeted super, there will be added admin sorting out who qualifies, and who is attempting a rort, etc. It is much easier to give everyone a super at a specific age, then take away an equivalent amount in taxes for those who don’t need the super.

        • geoff 13.1.1.2
          1 February 2013 at 8:51 am

          Then again, maybe we should just tax net worth or something. Whichever the case, there’s enough wealth in the system to support everyone, it’s just that, at the moment, it’s concentrated unsustainably and unequitiably in the hands of a minority.

    • bad12 13.2
      31 January 2013 at 8:29 pm

      This tho has little to do with a Roy Morgan political poll…

      • James 13.2.1
        31 January 2013 at 8:32 pm

        But everything to do with how to increase polling numbers.

        • bad12 13.2.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 9:31 pm

          For NZFirst you mean, touching National Super while Winston still draws breath in the Parliament seems to me to be a really stupid idea,(even proposing to touch it),

          IF changes to National Super have to be made then my advice is that such should be the proposal of a second or third term Government after having had a long narrative with the country over the proposed changes,( anything else is electoral suicide), and further to that, it is Treasury from where the proposals to cut national Super come, based upon Treasury’s numbers and pray tell me when the fuck Treasury have ever got anything right, those wankers have trouble counting their own fucking toes,

          Winston will not be around forever and who in NZFirst can you see with the Mana to carry on the NZFirst brand??? Brendan who???, shucks aint that a female canine, His knee-capping has been executed with aplomb…

    • JK 13.3
      31 January 2013 at 9:26 pm

      James : you have at least one superannuation fact misinterpreted, if not downright wrong

      ” People who are younger than 65 years old who are married to someone aged 65 and over” This only occurs if both these people have NO other income – otherwise it is means tested. eg if the younger person is made redundant, then the “superannuitant ‘couple’ ” have to (as) use up the redundancy and
      (b) then their “joint” superannuation is calculated on what they both might “earn” over the coming year from part-time jobs or investments/savings.

      As to the age of entitlement – that’s another debate. And in any case, I would have thought your comments re superannuation were off-track anyway – but somehow you’ve slipped thru the “moderating”
      cracks

      • James 13.3.1
        1 February 2013 at 7:10 pm

        Actually, you’re wrong

        If a partner is claiming NS at 65 and their younger partner is working, they too can also claim NS.

        It’s a simple fact and one that WINZ happily sign off on.

        Maybe distributing NS through IRD would be a far better option. At least then IRD have the means to determine if NS claimants are rorting the system. The current process where WINZ is supposed to be notified of any income changes by IRD simply does.not.work.

        Maybe the upcoming upgrade to IRDs antiquated system will fix this issue. Hopefully it’s not built by Talentless2

        • JK 13.3.1.1
          3 February 2013 at 7:31 am

          James – Please tell me which WINZ office signs off on two people claiming NS – one who is over 65, and the other younger and working.

          Then I, and my partner – now in a temporary job – can go in and claim two lots of NS instead of it just being me who can get NS while he is working.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.4
      1 February 2013 at 11:42 am

      Universal Income is easier than all of the benefits presently in existence.

  14. Anne 14
    31 January 2013 at 8:27 pm

    And who will the Labour leadership blame for this lapse in polling trend (or so they would wish to see it?). The disaffected non Labour left of course (that’s us btw)

    Of course. It’ll be all those rabid, left wing commies (to paraphrase Hooton) over at The Standard who are the cause. If they would just keep their mouths shut and stop slagging off Labour at every turn. We are deliberately undermining the Party and creating deep internal divisions in the process.

    The fact that 90% of the population have never heard of this site let alone visited it – and that the 10% who do know about it are still loafing around in a haze of summer sunshine – won’t even register with them. And any suggestion they might be the culprits themselves is pointless because they appear to be in total denial.

  15. bad12 15
    31 January 2013 at 8:46 pm

    See when you have a real good look at what Roy is saying He starts making not a hell of a lot of sense,(sortta like listening to me for too long),

    The Conservatives according to Roy are down a whole !%, being right wing vote, usually motivated to vote somewhere that lost 1% should have appeared in another Party of the right,

    That 1% didn’t appear in National/ACT’s neck of the woods according to the world as seen by Roy, NZFirst up .5% might be said to have got half of it but the other half???,

    Unless of course someone is going to suggest that the Green Party picked up the Conservatives lost 1%, (i would die laughing),

    Maori Party down .5%, United future down .5%, Roy doesn’t really add up when Party’s of the far right start showing % losses and Party’s on the far left are shown to have picked up those losses, and yeah maybe the center/center right picked up the loss of the far right vote and bled the same to the far left,

    Hey but i am in the way here of the get rid of Dave, and, replace Him with Dave campaign, (man that’s a confusion), carry on the good fight is what i say…

  16. peterlepaysan 16
    31 January 2013 at 9:44 pm

    Er! Excuse me could I draw your attention to a small pachyderm.

    Where the hell were the Labour voters at the last two general elections?

    Those non voters did not cross over to other parties in any great numbers.

    What the hell the NZLP got to offer?

    San Fairy Ann (= not a lot to the unwashed0.

  17. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 17
    31 January 2013 at 9:52 pm

    You think it’s bad now. Try moving further left and see what happens.

    People don’t like left wing ideas. Or left wingers.

    • CV - Real Labour 17.1
      31 January 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Yeah they do. Lots.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 17.1.1
        31 January 2013 at 9:59 pm

        So the reason National is unprecedentedly popular is because they are hard core lefties?

        • CV - Real Labour 17.1.1.1
          31 January 2013 at 10:08 pm

          They’re definitely socialists. Sharing tax payer largesse around.

          • burt 17.1.1.1.1
            31 January 2013 at 11:25 pm

            CV – Real Labour

            You are developing well. You can now recognise some of the ill effects of socialism and the uncomfortableness of living in a government using your money to buy other peoples votes.

            Now if you can just forget everything your family told you about Labour being good and National being bad you may come to the conclusion that both “Major parties” are blatant self serving machines. (Their logo colours are different, I’ll give you that.)

            • CV - Real Labour 17.1.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2013 at 11:35 pm

              well I can’t find that much objectionable with the details of your comment, at this time.

    • Rogue Trooper 17.2
      31 January 2013 at 9:57 pm

      well i’m not taking the bait back to fb sultana pastie

  18. burt 18
    31 January 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Zetetic

    Were this reflected in an election then you can bank on a National-NZ First Government.

    I’m as frightened of that as I are about a Labour NZ First government. Imagine it. Jolly old Winston might do something outrageous like getting a tax cut for the racing industry (as a coalition concession ) while also not declaring a large donation from racing related businesses. Bloody myopic National supporters would claim it’s OK to keep the coalition going and it’s just a bit of re-filing electoral finance returns … Nothing to see move on while National go about governing unconstrained by the well feed poodle.

    Horrific… Imagine the outrage there would be on this blog !!!!!!!

    • felixviper 18.1
      1 February 2013 at 7:11 am

      Believe it or not burt, some of us don’t want a right-wing govt. Winston was (just) tolerable with Labour because his right wing was clipped. With National the opposite would be the case.

      It’s not all about colours burt.

  19. xtasy 19
    1 February 2013 at 1:26 am

    The poll results do NOT surprise me one bit! I cannot see any improvement for Labour as long as Shearer is “leading” Labour into the political never never land, as long as the so-called ABC club has a grip on most of the caucus, as long as they try to be a more moderate, “friendlier” kind of Nat Party, and as long as they feed us and the media stuff all as supposed alternative policies.

    Sending their leading economic spokesperson and best speaker to the back bench, thus weakening the front bench was the most stupid act Shearer did, and all the questions they ask in hardly watched Question Time in Parliament, will not improve the polls either.

    A radical clean out and resolute reorganisation of the Labour caucus and shadow cabinet, starting with dumping Shearer would only be the beginning of what is needed.

    As I cannot see this happen, I remain convinced, it is the best time since the 1990s, to start a new, fresh, inclusive and smartly represented left of centre party right now. Some in Labour may even jump ship and boost such a party. It would definitely be seen a serious game changer in the eyes who refrained from voting the last elections. There would me many votes to gain, and I can see such a party reach perhaps 20 or more percent next election, depending on the human material that would make up and lead such a new left party.

  20. Te Reo Putake 20
    1 February 2013 at 8:26 am

    Morning all. A couple of quick points; this poll does not show flatlining; the opposition parties improved overall and the Government bloc dropped well below the numbers they need to retain power. NZF is now National’s only option. That in itself shows a desperate Government in decline.

    Secondly, what the fuck is going on in the Greens? Still stuck, barely in double figures, showing no sign of improvement. I’m sick of hearing from the Greens “just wait, it’ll get better”. Well it’s not. You’ve been stuck in the early teens now for 4 years. So stop making excuses.

    • mickysavage 20.1
      1 February 2013 at 8:33 am

      Um TRP the point was that Labour was flatlining and I regret that it’s support is.

      And the greens are at historically high levels of support.

      If you are advocating that Labour should stay where it is and the Greens improve further then that is fine. But there will be a number of disappointed Labour MPs as the Greens rightfully demand more cabinet positions.

      And of course the Government should be in decline. It should be terminal given all the stuff ups it has achieved lately. But it is still in the vicinity of being able to rule alone if it has a good campaign.

    • CV - Real Labour 20.2
      1 February 2013 at 8:35 am

      Labour continues to sit on their 3 year average of 31%, while the Greens sit at or near their historic highs. Indeed, their result is the only reason that you can say that the “opposition parties improved overall”. (You’re not suggesting that the current Labour leadership take credit for the Greens, are you?)

      I’m sick of hearing from the Greens “just wait, it’ll get better”. Well it’s not. You’ve been stuck in the early teens now for 4 years. So stop making excuses.

      Nice spin TRP. The graph shows that the Greens crossed 10% in mid 2011. Are you counting that as “early teens” for “4 years”? Imaginative, but incorrect.

    • The Al1en 20.3
      1 February 2013 at 8:40 am

      “Secondly” – True that spin goes all ways, and that’s a belter of a googlie TRP.

      Cartoon voices heard round the Labour table today.

      Mallard as the villain in ScoobyDoo – I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for those pesky Greens.

      Grant Robertson as Elmer Fudd – Shhh, I’m hunting for a wabbit.

      Shearer as Porky Pig – Th th th that’s all folks.

      Deader meat than under whaleoil’s blubber.

    • Te Reo Putake 20.4
      1 February 2013 at 8:50 am

      Tongue firmly in cheek, lads. As the Al1en spotted straightaway.

    • bad12 20.5
      1 February 2013 at 9:24 am

      TRP, Wake up with a migraine did you, exactly which Greens where have been saying ”wait it will get better”,

      As a Green party member i am more than happy that the support base appears to be at the least consolidating and maybe even growing,

      The real gut bust is you trying to deflect Labour Party woes onto the Green Party, thats a nice piece of head in the sand-ism worthy of an ostrich…

    • Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 20.6
      1 February 2013 at 9:36 am

      We can rest easy, TRP says all is well at the mill.

      I wonder how those naughty activists managed to get into such a lather over nothing.

      You naughty lot. Just be obedient and thou shall inherit the Beehive in 2014.

      Thank you TRP, Voice of Pagani, Finger of Jackal.

  21. Peter 21
    1 February 2013 at 8:53 am

    Hold.

    Hold, hold. Keep holding.

    Steady course always…

  22. tracey 22
    1 February 2013 at 9:30 am

    Phil Goff spoke briefly in a news clip the other day. No stuttering, no faux outrage, no trying not to smile, pithy and sharp. I am really missing him and I NEVER thought I would say that (didnt support him as leader thru last election).

  23. Chris 23
    1 February 2013 at 9:40 am

    Dyed in the wool tories reacting to keys heroic dumping of what’s their names.Forgotten already. Do the pollsters ring around until they get the right answer? I don’t know anyone who has any time for key and his acolytes who dance attendance on him.

  24. tracey 24
    1 February 2013 at 9:58 am

    Is lockwood going because Nats need a patsy in the lead up tot he election?? Is speaker always a stepping stone to the job in London???

  25. vto 25
    1 February 2013 at 10:10 am

    Methinks it will go down to the wire with a big final shove – like the 2010 rubber wool cup finale with France.

    But the Nats are done in the eye – think Christchurch and those parts that swung right post-earthquake and now firmly anti-nats. Think Pike River and the tinder box West Coast firmly anti-Key now. Think all those people being dumped on the scrapheap and bashed all the time as being “losers” and “bludgers”. Get them out to vote as well and surely the centre-left block last time which was pipped, will dominate

    • CV - Real Labour 25.1
      1 February 2013 at 10:14 am

      better not give Winnie and Dunne the balance of power, bloody hell that could be a disaster.

      • vto 25.1.1
        1 February 2013 at 10:23 am

        I don’t imagine Dunne the whore would be too much trouble given his munted malleability. As for Winston – seems like strong, well thought out, accurate and detailed management of his bunch of bozos and his politics would be the way – be ready to outwit at every 8.00am, which may include provision of sufficient rope from time to time.

        And why do the Greens seem a bit stuck, as some suggest? Perhaps they are reaching a ceiling in the populace – a natural water level, due to their policies and people which are a bit more fruity than most (although it is surprising how many admit to voting for them. Nobody ever admits to voting nats these days).

        Overall, as Peter suggests above, hold the line and keep chipping and pushing – weeeiiigght !!!

  26. AmaKiwi 26
    1 February 2013 at 10:11 am

    The caucus vote is NOT about confidence in the leader.

    It is a about whether caucus has confidence in the membership.

    If they don’t trust us to pick the leader, I walk.

    • tracey 26.1
      1 February 2013 at 10:31 am

      are you saying the Mps will vote unanimously in favour of shearer to stop it going to the membership?

    • KhandallaViper 26.2
      1 February 2013 at 12:34 pm

      AmaKiwi

      You nailed it, the Confidence vote is now about the Caucus’s attitude towards the Unions and the Members.

  27. unpcnzcougar 27
    1 February 2013 at 11:05 am

    I come from a family of life time Labour voters. I last voted Labour in 1987 much to the horror of my father – he was a Union Rep during his working years.
    Last election at the grand old age of 78 he voted for National. I asked him why and he said for his grandchildren as any government at his age was not going to effect him but the future of the younger generation was more important. He meant in terms of the economy.
    What I feel Labour lacks is a leader with charisma and the X Factor. History shows time and again that no matter the policies of a particular leader and their party the public can be won over (for good or bad) on the leader.
    In my opinion the last leader we had in this country who had that ability was David Lange. Barack Obama is a good example of a leader currently who has those qualities.
    Labour need to search for such a person if they are serious about having a mandate to govern.

    • AmaKiwi 27.1
      1 February 2013 at 11:20 am

      “Labour need to search for such a person”

      Why the f*ck would anyone try after what has been done to Cunliffe!

      Tall poppy syndrome, a cardinal principle of the Labour Party.

      The dinosaurs can’t stand anyone with a brain larger than theirs (Fullbright Scholar, Harvard, Boston Corp., Health Minister, unbundled Telecom, etc., etc. etc.)

    • tracey 27.2
      1 February 2013 at 11:24 am

      I find that odd. What exactly did he think National was going to do for the economy which would be so good for his grandchildren?

      • unpcnzcougar 27.2.1
        1 February 2013 at 11:31 am

        He felt that during the GFC that National would be better able to keep the economy stable. As an afterword he is not voting next election as he can’t stand any of them. I think that speaks volumes to the 24% mentioned above if many of them feel the way he does.

        • tracey 27.2.1.1
          1 February 2013 at 11:38 am

          I guess I am just surprised that a former union leader could be voting for measures to weaken employee conditions.

          • unpcnzcougar 27.2.1.1.1
            1 February 2013 at 11:51 am

            He doesn’t see it that way. If you think back to when he was working in the 60’s and 70’s conditions were way worse than they are now.

            • tracey 27.2.1.1.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 11:56 am

              I understand he doesnt see it that way and he is entitled to change his views. At least int he 60s and 70s there was full employment and strong unions

              • CV - Real Labour …
                1 February 2013 at 12:31 pm

                He doesn’t see it that way. If you think back to when he was working in the 60′s and 70′s conditions were way worse than they are now.

                This is utter utter utter bullshit, unpc.

                Unless you don’t like getting double time for overtime, allowances for working away from home, for clothing and for tools.

                Plus you could leave school at 15, get a job, qualify in a trade and buy your own house within 5 years.

            • fatty 27.2.1.1.1.2
              1 February 2013 at 2:38 pm

              If you think back to when he was working in the 60′s and 70′s conditions were way worse than they are now.

              In what way? I understand that claim if someone was a freemarket libertarian…but if your father was a union leader – how on earth can he claim this?
              What’s his reasoning?

        • felixviper 27.2.1.2
          1 February 2013 at 11:41 am

          “He felt that during the GFC that National would be better able to keep the economy stable.”

          It’s not an unusual sentiment. However there is zero evidence to suggest that it has any merit whatsoever.

          • unpcnzcougar 27.2.1.2.1
            1 February 2013 at 11:56 am

            No it’s not an unusual sentiment. A lady I was working with party voted National for the same reason. However, it is a moot point.
            The problem I see is that if National can’t put together a coalition after the next election based on the poll today then we would end up with Labour/Greens/Mana plus possibly Maori Party and NZ First. That to me would be a real problem as I don’t see how it could possibly work especially when it comes to the economy. We don’t want the situation where say Winston or Hone holds the country to ransom over something ridiculous. This has happened before and it turned out to be disastrous.
            If Labour can’t get any traction in the polls then this could possibly be enough reason for any swing voters to come in behind National again.

            • tracey 27.2.1.2.1.1
              1 February 2013 at 12:06 pm

              ACT has been wagging the tail until the debacle over Mr Banks lying about anonymous donations. Look at their percentage of the vote versus the law they have got through or policy implemented (as opposed to the MP). It’s just that you prefer their policies so you dont notice the little tail wagging.

              Can you give examples of winston and hone holding a government, particularly labour, to ransom over something ridiculous?

              • unpcnzcougar …
                1 February 2013 at 12:40 pm

                I agree ACT is a joke and hopefully the MMP review will deal to this. As for Mana here are a few examples.
                Remove GST from all food (and everything else), but introduce a tax on fast foods and soft drinks.
                Provide healthy meals for all children at school.
                Expand the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal to make binding recommendations in certain cases.
                Remove the 2014 deadline for lodging historical claims with the Waitangi Tribunal to better enable iwi with such claims to properly research and state their cases.
                Introduce a requirement for all State-Owned Enterprises and Māori corporate entities to prioritise the employment of New Zealand residents or face significant financial penalties.
                Immediately increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour (1 April 2012) and raise it to two-thirds of the average wage (1 April 2013). We oppose the call to reintroduce a lower minimum wage for youth.
                Abolish GST
                Introduce a capital gains tax on all but the family home and Maori land.
                Reintroduce inheritance tax to be paid on a progressive scale for inheritances valued at over $500,000.
                Māori providers of tertiary education to be funded as a Treaty partnership responsibility of the Crown.
                Give hapū and iwi decision making powers equal to government and local government in developing environmental policies relating to biodiversity, prospecting, the management of coastal areas and RMA plans so they can exercise kaitiakitanga over lands, coastal areas, and waterways.
                Maintain national superannuation as a universal payment for everyone aged 65 and over.
                Review the Charities Act 2005. Ensure that organisations which play an advocacy role are not denied charitable status. If a group carries out political advocacy in accordance with its kaupapa, this should not be used as a reason for refusing it Government or charitable funding.

                For Winston the main issue would be no change to the age of retirement.

                These are just a few that could cause lots of grief, in my personal opinion.

            • fatty 27.2.1.2.1.2
              1 February 2013 at 2:22 pm

              We don’t want the situation where say Winston or Hone holds the country to ransom over something ridiculous. This has happened before and it turned out to be disastrous.

              Did Hone hold the country to ransom? I missed that. Link please

    • bad12 27.3
      1 February 2013 at 11:48 am

      A Bulls**t artist who couldn’t even control His own Finance Minister or Cabinet you mean???…

  28. Plan B 28
    1 February 2013 at 11:25 am

    Has everyone covered the whole
    Key state of the Nation sponsored by luxury car company thing
    It really does say something doesn’t it

  29. VivaciousViper 29
    1 February 2013 at 11:57 am

    There needs to be as much pressure put on caucus mp’s as possible over the weekend to
    allow a wider vote on the leadership,while this is not the only thing that has bighted labour
    over the last 20 + years,it would be a smart,strategic move to include the wishes of
    members and the wider ‘once were labour,but haven’t been for a while’ votes, it would also demonstrate that labour is inclusive once again and acknowledges the people factor, for too
    long Labour has meandered down a path without care or concern for it’s people,self preservation
    for caucus lifestyles has become paramount at the detriment of the Labour party as a whole.
    Policies have been tainted with right wing philosophies for far too long and now the chicken
    has come home to roost and the people are refusing to vote for that ideology,this can be
    seen in the 100.000 kiwibuild policy,it has not moved anyone,only those who are of a right
    wing bent.
    Stagnation in the polls is all that Labour will achieve going forward unless there is a big change and urgent evaluation of it’s thinking processes, the caucus only needs to look behind them to see the evidence that the masses have not been inspired to vote for their beloved party of choice.

  30. Michael 30
    1 February 2013 at 12:37 pm

    The Nats are riding so high in the polls because the Greens aren’t strong enough yet to present themselves as the next government-in-waiting. Labour has given up even trying.

  31. AmaKiwi 31
    1 February 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Vivacious Viper

    “There needs to be as much pressure put on caucus mp’s as possible over the weekend to
    allow a wider vote on the leadership”

    Absolutely!

  32. Fortran 32
    1 February 2013 at 1:47 pm

    It would appear from the Morgan results over the last year that Labour are leaching votes to the Greens and not from anywhere else – so it is a Coalition result really which is good for the left.
    Both parties have to capture votes from middle New Zealand currently neither Labour or Green.

  33. RedLogix 33
    1 February 2013 at 2:10 pm

    No.

    You are all wrong. You are all applying thinking from six election cycles ago in 1999 when Labour last took an election off a hopeless and widely disliked National government.

    Three reasons why that National govt lost that election:

    1. Winston Peters

    2. Jenny Shipley

    3. A media that was finally willing to deviate from the Tory line.

    Three reasons why this will not happen again:

    1. John Key

    2. David Shearer

    3. A media that is now fully corporatised and controlled by overseas owners. They will never deviate in any meaningful fashion from the message.

    The left will not win an election as long as John Key remains in the job .. AND Labour continues to play the same tired old political games waiting for the electoral cycle to deliver them back into power. I don’t think that strategy is going to work anymore. Instead of ‘voting for a change’ more and more people are simply not voting.

    The Greens are doing all the right things but are utterly marginalised by the media.. For instance how many people, even here at TS, have ever seriously contemplated what a Green Party led government might look like? And what would it take to achieve that?

  34. Enough is Enough 34
    1 February 2013 at 2:39 pm

    The National Government when viewed in isolation from the rest of Parliament should be the most umpopular government this country has ever seen. They do not have one single competent minister. Every single ministry is failing. And the economy is the worst it has been since 1941.

    Yet they are incredibly popular. Why?

    The answer is simple. MUMBLEFUCK.

    He has to go.

    • CV - Real Labour 34.1
      1 February 2013 at 6:14 pm

      National has several competent Ministers. Ones that Labour’s counterparts have barely been able to scratch after 4 years.

  35. Jackal 35
    1 February 2013 at 3:07 pm

    I don’t think flatlining is the right word to use, being that if an election was held today, a left coalition would be more likely to form a government.

    Here’s the right wing propagandist David Farrar’s take over at curiablog:

    Coalition Options

    CR – National 56 + United Future 1 = 57/122 – five fewer than the minimum needed to govern
    CL – Labour 38 + Greens 16 + NZ First 7 + Mana 1 = 62/122 – the minimum needed to govern

    The Maori Party is not shown as part of the centre-right or centre-left.

    It’s even worse for National when you consider they’ll likely lose some electorate seats and Peter Dunne is going to have a hard time keeping his.

    So why all the despondency above about Labour and David Shearer’s leadership of it?

    • Rogue Trooper 35.1
      1 February 2013 at 5:56 pm

      Great return (thrown back) on your site Jackal.

      and for a whole in one, “money money money, it’s a rich mans world” (not necessarily the end, just the beginning)

      -omega (3 is helpful but we can get it from our diet without supplementation) (Chaos, now that is interesting, wheels within wheels coming to meet)

    • CV - Real Labour 35.2
      1 February 2013 at 6:16 pm

      So why all the despondency above about Labour and David Shearer’s leadership of it?

      Whose despondent? The Titanic is unsinkable, don’t you know.

      Also, read RL’s comment

      http://thestandard.org.nz/another-flatlining-roy-morgan/#comment-582314

      • Rhinocrates 35.2.1
        1 February 2013 at 10:27 pm

        The Titanic is unsinkable, don’t you know.

        And it has the most desirable deck chairs, considering how desperately Robertson et al are fighting to keep them in their present arrangement.

  36. Tombstone 36
    1 February 2013 at 10:20 pm

    I’m a welder by trade so certainly not proclaiming to be a political expert as such but here’s my thoughts which also echo those of who I work with in the industry. There are two major problems. Key smiles and waves and tries to portray himself as the funny guy – the sort of bloke you’d gladly have a beer with at a BBQ. The man who has made millions so when he talks money he surly must know his stuff. People have bought into it hook, line and sinker. Labour has in turn had two nice guys up against Key since he’s been in office, Goff and now Shearer and the public haven’t been swayed by either. I think Labour need to put up someone who is almost the polar opposite of Key by which I mean – someone who is level headed, highly articulate, direct and will take one on the chin and then serve up a carefully calculated right hook in response. Someone who makes Key look small and makes Key feel small. Someone with genuine presence that can’t ignored. A true leader. Then there’s the media – toothless, sensationalist and totally lacking in substance. They should be tearing into this government but they’re not. They simply report but with no hard hitting show where these people are put through the ringer and asked the seriously hard questions the likes of Key know that the media is hardly worth worrying about and he plays it to his advantage. Just my thoughts … one thing is for certain National need to be gone come the next election otherwise the future is only gonna look even more grim that’s for certain.

    • rosy 36.1
      1 February 2013 at 10:43 pm

      I wish someone more important than me was reading this. A succinct summary of the problem, imo. Short of that charismatic leader, Labour needs to have something spell-binding to say. It doesn’t. It nearly got there in the few months before the last election, but then let it go,

    • xtasy 36.2
      3 February 2013 at 2:27 am

      Tombstone – for a welder, you make a very good political analyst. Have you ever thought of challenging John Armstrong at APN and New Zealand Herald for a job. He is showing signs of aging, he needs replacing, also better with a better attuned and smart fellow.

      Yes, Key is getting too much allowance, he should never get away with so much.

      The MSM, we call that in short for mainstream media, they are all now lackeys paid by corporate employers, and they all live of advertising and favoritism. Even TVNZ is rotten now.

      But who watches or listens to the only real left over Maori TV or National Radio.

      Even they are in danger. We get appalling media reporting, worse than any other country in the “western world” that I know of. I have lived in a few places in Europe and elsewhere, and I know what I am talking about.

      If there was a more balanced reporting and media, more may be exposed. But apart from that, too many are also too lazy and self serving, to bother, and they too much just look after their own immediate interests.

      In short: NZ is no longer what it used to be. It is divided, and sadly full of too many self serving egotists, who give little consideration to fairness and the common good and development. Sadly Shearer lacks skill and knowledge. I favour Cunliffe now, while I am no fan of his, but he at least has brain, can speak, talk and has some ideas.

    • just saying 36.3
      3 February 2013 at 8:02 am

      I think Labour need to put up someone who is almost the polar opposite of Key…

      This!!

      The strategy of aping Key has played right into his greedy, grasping hands for four long years now. It will never work. How long is the leadership team going to keep whipping this particular dead horse?
      It doesn’t have to be Cunliffe, but it does have to be someone completely different to Key. It’s only possible to beat someone at their own game, if the opponent is better than them at their own game. That is never going to happen.

      The Labour Party is always going to be hobbled in Key’s game by its morality, maybe not the morality of the leadership, but certainly that of the membership, the expectations of the public, and the principles and the very purpose of the party.

      It’s time to change the game. And if the Labour caucus can’t see that, I can’t see any hope for the party.

  37. Mike 37
    3 February 2013 at 1:27 am

    These polls are done via telephone.

    Most of the poor or lower income people I know (and that’s quite a few) don’t have landlines because they can’t afford them. They are also all left leaning voters.

    Most of the National Party voters I know (and again, it is quite a few) all have landlines.

    I wonder if this is a significant factor in telephone polling. Might be but might be nothing.

  38. AmaKiwi 38
    3 February 2013 at 2:25 am

    In 2005, every Democratic party leader thought Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in to be the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate. Not one in a hundred Americans knew anything about the junior Senator from Illinois, Barak Obama.

    The Democrat’s got their landslide winner through an open primary contest, not backroom deals.

    As Chris Trotter pointed out recently, Labour’s best vote getter might NOT be Shearer OR Cunliffe. I don’t care who it is. I want Labour to win in 2014.

    Labour needs an open primary contest to get the best person to beat National in 22 months.

    • xtasy 38.1
      3 February 2013 at 2:34 am

      1 day to go, is it not??? Shearer – fucking hell, step down you arrogant self-serving destroyer of the most reputed (that was) party in NZ history. You are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands with your insistence on a job that you do NOT deserve!

      How can you do this, it is so disgusting and self-serving. Some want to go down with the sinking Titanic, I suppose. Hell, I cannot believe what the crap is going on here.

      I need another beer, many beers, I will never stop drinking beer, as long as this nonsense goes on.

      TRAITOR!!!

    • karol 38.2
      3 February 2013 at 7:10 am

      The Democrat’s got their landslide winner through an open primary contest, not backroom deals.

      I don’t think it was that clear cut. At a certain point the US MSM swung behind Obama, and often demonised Clinton. Obama would not have had a chance if he didn’t accept some wealthy and powerful Wall Street backers. I thought at the time that the US elite decided Obama would have been easier to control/influence than Clinton.

  39. AmaKiwi 39
    3 February 2013 at 3:31 am

    Some years ago, 4 U.S. Senators were competing in primaries for the Democratic presidential nomination. At the outset the experienced politicians and the main stream media gave the outsider of the four the least chance of winning: too inexperienced, too young, too little name recognition.

    They underestimated John F. Kennedy.

    The rank and file will tell us who is Labour’s best candidate to win in 2014, but only if we have an open leadership contest.

  40. Rob 40
    4 February 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Tell me more about how the greens have done their bit, their polling has been equally as up and down as Labours, if not worse.

    • CV - Real Labour 40.1
      4 February 2013 at 1:46 pm

      Nice thing about the Greens – they don’t have to justify their performance to anyone as their polling today is at near record highs compared to any time over the last 10 years.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.