Colmar Brunton poll

25 comments on “Colmar Brunton poll ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Prophet 1

   18 February 2008 at 11:34 am

   That’s quite a swing from recent polls, which have shown the gap between the two major parties narrowing to within ten points

   Tane could you please show me which recent polls show Labour within 10 points?

   Otherwise maybe you should change your post to say –

   That’s quite a swing from a recent poll, which have shows the gap between the two major parties narrowing to within ten points
2. Monty 2

   18 February 2008 at 11:40 am

   Dead Cat Bounce. And then of course the brewing story of Ministerial Warrants for Cash may hurt Labour even more. Calrk who in spite of a high IQ and photographic memory “cannot remember” the discussion. I do have to give her credit for clouding the waters – but the reality is that one recollection is very clear and the other(Clark’s) is conveniently hazy – but at least it cannot be proved she lied.

   So the good news continues for the Nats – Key remains looking Prime Ministerial while the best that Labour has is suffering from memory lapse (as happens when you are in the shit)

   The more Key is on TV and the radio the higher his popularity – so come the election when he has even media time (or even more than Clark) will mean that his popularity will continue to improve –

   I think Laour’s best hope now is to try and minimise the damage and work the list so that all the dead wood is cut because at this time they are going to need every good MP while iin opposition to try and rebuild for the next winable election some 12 years away (and it will take all that time to clear out the Labour ranks and bring in enough experienced MPs to mount a credible challenge to the Natural Party of Government.
3. outofbed 3

   18 February 2008 at 11:50 am

   I could live with the National Party winning the election.
   After all one has to respect democracy
   However winning by being economical with the truth and hiding
   your core beliefs behind a hollow smile, is frankly just not cricket.
   Be honest and up front and see if people like what you stand for

   In my opinion only the Greens do this
4. Policy Parrot 4

   18 February 2008 at 11:56 am

   Hows Smithers Monty?
5. Inventory2 5

   18 February 2008 at 12:04 pm

   outofbed said “I could live with the National Party winning the election.
   After all one has to respect democracy
   However winning by being economical with the truth and hiding
   your core beliefs behind a hollow smile, is frankly just not cricket.’

   So you’re not a fan of Helen Clark’s First XI then oob?
6. Monty 6

   18 February 2008 at 12:09 pm

   Oh dear – the Labour Party is imploding and quite correctly the Nats have their tails up and in the air – the good news continues for the Blue team .

   In addition, the leftards continue to accuse the Nats of their own worst crimes. If you want to look at being economical with the truth then look o further than Clark not remembering an embarrassing conversation about Ministerial warrants for cash (as she said on Holmes this morning)

   The Greens of course are quite prepared to sell their values in pursuit of power – and for this look no further than the EFA. While it is good that outofbed respects democracy – it is a shame the Labour politicians over whom you lefties fawn and worship do not,
7. Daveo 7

   18 February 2008 at 12:13 pm

   The EFA is completely consistent with the Greens’ principle that democracy is for the many, not the few. Don’t think that just because you don’t understand the difference between restricting spending and restricting speech no one else does.
8. the sprout 8

   18 February 2008 at 12:16 pm

   “the good news continues for the Blue team”

   as National favoured to win Rugby World Cup
9. Monty 9

   18 February 2008 at 12:23 pm

   Daveo – the thing is Labour drove through the EFA without wide cross party support. They undertook constitutional law change in back room deals with barely enough members to get 51% support. That is one of the disgraces of the EFA and any party that did not demand wide support from both the community and from within parliament deserves to be punished at the next election.

   The Greens supported Labour right through this most self serving legislation. Because of the parnoria from a law abiding but weird religious group, the greens have put a price on freedom and expression of speech.

   Do not try and defend the indefensible – you will lose every time.

   I believe that because fot he EFA Labour will now find most people have made up their mind how they will vote in the election. Those people will not change their vote from National back to the left (who have done thir time and now want a chage)
10. outofbed 10

    18 February 2008 at 12:50 pm

    “I want a chage” that is french for shag isn’t it ?
11. r0b 11

    18 February 2008 at 1:45 pm

    the thing is Labour drove through the EFA without wide cross party support.

    Monty is a liar. The majority of parties in parliament supported the EFA for the majority of the debate.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481042&pnum=0

    For the majority of the debate it was 5 parties in favour, 3 parties opposed (with one of those opposed, the Maori party, supporting the principles of the EFA, but not some of the actual drafting).
12. Ex Labour Voter 12

    18 February 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Monty isn’t a liar, r0b. You are a liar. The Bill was passed by four of the eight “parties” in Parliament, on a bare majority of MPs in the House. The parties supporting the Bill included Labour, New Zealand First, the Greens, and the one-man band of Jim Anderton. If Jim Anderton is a political party, then so too is Taito Phillip Field, who opposed the Bill.

    Those people opposing the Bill included National, Act, the Maori Party (if you read Hone Harawira’s speech, it could have come from any opposition MP), and United Future. Gordon Copeland was against the Bill also. There was no cross-party support for the Bill.
13. r0b 13

    18 February 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Monty isn’t a liar, r0b. You are a liar.

    Three deep breaths ELV, and read what I wrote.

    Bills pass through many stages, and for most of them the EFA was supported by 5 / 8 parties. It is true that United Future (Peter Dunne) changed its mind at the final reading, but that doesn’t change the fact that it supported it for the majority of the process. Which is what I wrote. Read Dunne’s opinions in The Herald article linked.

    the one-man band of Jim Anderton. If Jim Anderton is a political party, then so too is Taito Phillip Field

    And Act is a 2 person band, so what? A political party is a political party, it has a legal existence, a certain number of members, and so on. The Progressives are a political party, so is ACT, Philip Field is not. Sorry.

    The majority of parties in parliament supported the EFA for the majority of the debate. Monty is a liar.
14. outofbed 14

    18 February 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Surely there will be a time when Key and co have to face up to the tough questions
    I guess the Tory strategy is to smile and say nothing and keep the momentum going till the election campaign.
    I think however partisan one might be, its obvious Clarke is capable of destroying Key in any debate
    Key is a lightweight The question is, will the strategy get them over the line?
    I have a strong feeling that it won’t. It maybe wishful thinking, but I don’t like the thought that in NZ, being economical with the truth will win an election.
    Time will tell I guess
15. Ex Labour Voter 15

    18 February 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Daveo – the thing is Labour drove through the EFA without wide cross party support. They undertook constitutional law change in back room deals with barely enough members to get 51% support.

    That’s what Monty wrote, Rob. There wasn’t wide cross-party support. The Maori Party did not support the Bill. It was not about the wording of the Bill. Read Hone Harawira’s speech, and ask yourself honestly if his concern was about the Bill’s drafting.

    Monty is absolutely correct that the Labour Party rammed the Bill through with barely 51% support of the House. That is not wide cross-party support. No amount of spinning from you, saying: “Oh, but Peter Dunne’s party only changed their mind at the last minute”, and “Jim Anderton is a party, but Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field aren’t a party”, is a nonsense.

    You deliberately tried to play duplicitous maths from the beginning when you first said that the Bill had the majority support of the majority of parties in the House. That wasn’t true. The Bill passed without a majority of parties, and only a bare majority of members.
16. Historian 16

    18 February 2008 at 2:32 pm

    If the Electoral Finance Act is so unpopular, why have National lost support in the Colmar Brunton poll? Why have the Greens gone up?
17. r0b 17

    18 February 2008 at 2:34 pm

    There wasn’t wide cross-party support.

    Please read The Herald article linked. Actually read it ELV:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481042&pnum=0
18. Draco TB 18

    18 February 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Because of the parnoria from a law abiding but weird religious group,

    Which went to great lengths to get around the intent of the law as it was. Just because it was legal doesn’t mean that it was right.

    Do not try and defend the indefensible – you will lose every time.

    You should probably start taking your own advice.
19. Phil 19

    18 February 2008 at 6:05 pm

    “If the Electoral Finance Act is so unpopular, why have National lost support in the Colmar Brunton poll? Why have the Greens gone up?”

    Hmmmm…. Maybe because it’s one poll, showing abnormal results to others around it… Maybe because other events are introducing different ‘noise’ to the statistical dataset… Maybe because there is a compositional effect of different methodology…

    If you couldn’t come up with some of these, you must be a pretty shite historian.
20. Historian 20

    18 February 2008 at 7:13 pm

    “Maybe because it’s one poll, showing abnormal results to others around it …”

    Ah, I caught a good-sized snapper. No need to throw that one back.
21. Gooner 21

    18 February 2008 at 9:56 pm

    “…In my opinion only the Greens do this”.

    And Act.
22. Murray 22

    18 February 2008 at 10:46 pm

    What does campaigning like an underdog involve? Please enlighten me. My guess is mud slinging and personal attacks. I think Labour would be on a very slippery slope if they attempted this line of attack.
23. r0b 23

    18 February 2008 at 11:38 pm

    I think Espinser has cracked Labour’s campaign plan…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4405821a1861.html
24. outofbed 24

    19 February 2008 at 2:36 am

    There’s a Plan ?
    Thank fuck for that
25. r0b 25

    19 February 2008 at 8:20 am

    Of course there’s a plan. We got a consultant in. Bald guy called Rick. He promised us that the plan was particularly cunning!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS