Colmar poll

Written By: - Date published: 6:21 am, April 20th, 2015 - 141 comments
Categories: polls - Tags: , ,

No significant changes in yesterdays TV1 / Colmar Brunton poll, with National unchanged on 49%, Labour unchanged on 31%, and all changes within the margin of error.

Certain Nats have started counting their chickens for a fourth term!

141 comments on “Colmar poll”

  1. Paul 1

    Northland bridges.
    International Milk prices.
    Housing bubbles
    Iraq.
    Child Poverty
    The TPPA
    The attack on Campbell Live
    Clear and present warnings from economists that NZ’s economy is vulnerable.

    And 49% of NZ is still sound asleep.
    Unbelievable

    • infused 1.1

      Suggests it’s not the govt that’s out of touch.

      • vto 1.1.1

        Suggests the govt is also out of touch

        Or that the nation is 50-50 divided and heavily so. Good one eh.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2

        Suggests that the government and ~49% of people are out of touch with reality. Contrary to what RWNJs believe, being popular doesn’t make you or your actions right.

    • Clemgeopin 1.2

      It shows that 51% are not completely fooled by Key, but 49% still are. But the general election was not too long ago. There are still about 2.5 years, a long time, to go before the next election.

  2. Whateva next? 2

    It is, and I don’t believe that 49% of the country akshully think that National are any good.
    questions can be asked to produce desired answers, just like Key can find a lawyer or a scientist to say whatever he wants.

    • Paul 2.1

      Maybe they just ask property owning Aucklanders, with good savings and therefore no reliance on a thriving NZ economy. These same people must also be either unaware or don’t care about the rest of the issues mentioned.

  3. Sanctuary 3

    Time to face facts – we’ve psychologically become a third world country, where the top half of the population dominates the media and has given up even caring about the bottom half, and the bottom half have slipped into invisibility and inertia.

    • saveNZ 3.2

      @Sanctuary

      I don’t believe that. It is not the top half that is at fault, it is the top 1% of people in this country controlling the media, the public servants and the assets.

      If this poll is true (and I personally don’t think it is) then 48% of Kiwis are not smart enough to understand that it is borrowed money and people are feeling good cos they are cashing up with all the foreign capital coming in and buying up NZ while imports are cheap (petrol, TV’s etc) making them feel that they are ok.

      Combined with messages that everything is the poor’s fault, smoke and mirrors on all issues and a compliant media which in many cases acts like the full time campaign managers for the Nats.

      Indépendant media, I don’t think so!

      The light is that the message got through in Northland, which quote Winston has a zero chance.

      In an election scenario having 51% of people NOT voting National means that there is far more hope than there was in Northland so it is up to the strength and strategy of the opposition.

  4. Matthew Hooton 4

    For a govt to change, the incumbent needs to look arrogant, dodgy, corrupt, out of touch, out of ideas, or a combination of these; and the challenger needs to look attractive and compenent. National is doing it’s but for a change of govt even if Labour is not!

    • Jones 4.1

      Mhmm…. parties don’t win elections… Governments lose them. National is on the way out, “third-termistis” has well and truly taken hold. Some water still needs to flow under that bridge though… will John Key be contesting the next election?

    • Weepus beard 4.2

      No apostrophe in its. Am assuming but is a simple typo.

    • Ovid 4.3

      Yes. But Labour can’t sleepwalk to victory. The party are getting their house in order, though with the changes of people in key positions and their review of the 2014 election. Internal divisions seem to have settled down.

      Andrew Little has made it clear that Labour is through with advocating unpopular policies like a capital gains tax (I know a majority say there should be one, but in the privacy of the voting booth, are they going to follow through on that? 6 year-olds may say that eating their greens is good, but they’ll go for lollies instead).

      So I guess they are going to be a lot more focus group and poll driven. Which will disappoint me slightly and a lot of people on the left quite a bit more. But my belief is that there’s very little that can be achieved in opposition and a change of tone is at least a start.

      Housing remains a big issue and for the good of the country I hope Key does something to address it, but I doubt he will do what’s necessary. If dairy continues to stay deflated, Australia’s economy remains slow and Auckland real estate collapses, he is hosed.

      Further, there’s international trends. With a change of government an open question in the UK and a near certainty in Australia, NZ voters may end up following the fashion overseas.

      • swordfish 4.3.1

        “Andrew Little has made it clear that Labour is through with advocating unpopular policies like a capital gains tax (I know a majority say there should be one, but…..)

        (1) Polls specifically on CGT

        July 2011 Colmar Brunton
        Support 43%
        Oppose 49%
        Unsure 9%

        July 2011 Herald-DigiPoll
        Support 38%
        Oppose 38%
        No Opinion 23%

        (Strongly Support 16.5%, Moderately Support 21.4% / Moderately Oppose 16.0%, Strongly Oppose 21.5%)

        May 2014 Fairfax Ipsos
        (List of 8 Policies/Issues. Asked respondents if they felt the particular policy/issue was (1) personally important to them and (2) important for the Country as a whole)

        Introduce Capital Gains Tax
        Personally Important 28%
        Important for the Country 44%
        (Of the 8 policies/issues, CGT was the second least important personally (ie 6 policies/issues recorded more than 28%) and the very least important in terms of the Country (ie the other 7 issues all received more than 44%)

        June 2014 Herald-DigiPoll
        Support 41%
        Oppose 35%
        Unsure 24%

        (2) Polls pitting CGT against Partial Asset Sales

        July 2011 Herald-DigiPoll
        CGT 43%
        Asset Part-Sales 34%

        August 2011 Reid Research
        CGT 53%
        Partial Asset Sales 31%

  5. Sable 5

    Stupid people are allowed to vote too….

  6. jenny kirk 6

    I thought it was an okay poll for Labour – when not much in the media recently.
    And not so okay for the govt when Gallipoli, Peter Jackson, new war memorial and terrorism being pumped out non-stop by Key and his mates and the poll for the Nats unchanged from last time.

  7. Anne 7

    Bear in mind the Colmar Brunton (as long ago as I can remember) has always favoured the Nats. Following from that, it’s likely the Nats have dropped a bit in their support and Labour has risen a bit.

    Still strange though that:

    For a govt to change, the incumbent needs to look arrogant, dodgy, corrupt, out of touch, out of ideas, or a combination of these; and the challenger needs to look attractive and compenent. Think MH meant competent.

    We have such a scenario and yet too many voters are still in a zombie-like state when it comes to politics. Drunk or sedated on cooking and ghastly reality shows I suppose.

    • Bearded Git 7.1

      Has anyone seen a Roy Morgan recently?

      • lprent 7.1.1

        http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand is the general place

        http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/new-zealand/government-v-opposition

        As at early march shows as being finely balanced.

        New Zealand Election, September 20, 2014 Govt 49.27 Opposition 44.49

        March 2-15, 2015 Govt: 49.5 Opp: 48
        February 2-15, 2015 Govt: 50 Opp: 48
        January 5-18, 2015 Govt: 54.5 Opp: 43

        *National-led Government: National Party, Maori Party, ACT New Zealand, United Future;
        #Opposition Parties: Labour Party, Green Party and New Zealand First;
        Conservative Party, Mana Party, Internet Party & Other are not included as they are not represented in Parliament.

        • swordfish 7.1.1.1

          Must admit, I’ve been including Mana/IMP in my Oppo figures. Which I’d argue is certainly justified when comparing the Broad Right Bloc (Govt + Cons) with the Broad Oppo (Left + NZF), but possibly less acceptable when specifically comparing Govt vs Oppo Blocs.

          • lprent 7.1.1.1.1

            It isn’t that realistic in practical terms. They aren’t within reaching distance of getting 5%. I rather suspect that Kelvin Davis is going to be working pretty damn hard on the 2017 election right now, and I suspect that he is too ‘clean’ to find a good muckrake on.

            It’d take an accommodation that is likely to be beyond the realms of political feasibility for both the public, and probably many of the Labour members after the crap that got spewed towards them in the last election. One of the problems for the IMP party and their supporters is that political activists tend to have very long memories, especially for people who make their work harder.

            Which is why the politically naive like Bomber should damn well learn a bit more before they rant. It isn’t an audience of talkback or student radio. It is an audience that thinks in decades.

        • Bearded Git 7.1.1.2

          Thanks lprent

  8. keyman 8

    See how awesome john key is national are untouchable we are the elite of new Zealand we are the people who count our lives are great john key is greatest leader new Zealand has ever had nothing can stop us we are born to rule it is our birth right we rule by divine right .

  9. dave 9

    1984 new Zealand was on brink of bankruptcy, 1999 unemployment and poverty were rampant
    Change only happens in a collapse ie the voters can’t pay the mortgages when middle class collapse reaches critical mass

  10. fisiani 10

    49% is a good base for April 15 and it puts National in pole position. Employment is rising. Benefit numbers are plummeting. Wages are growing higher than inflation. China and most of Asia are still growing faster than the OECD average and the growing middle classes want the protein we can produce.
    I find it amazing that only 49% of people support National given how well they have performed in the next six years. Add in a stronger dollar than the Aussie one and a growing surplus and watch that number head above 50%. Thousands more houses will be built in the next 30 months.Bridges will be built. Roads will be built. Milk prices will rise. The TPPA will never get through Congress.

    Northland bridges. – will be built
    International Milk prices. -will rise
    Housing bubbles – will improve
    Iraq.- we are on the side of the good guys
    Child Poverty – watch for Budget details
    The TPPA – will never get through Congress
    The attack on Campbell Live – what attack?
    Clear and present warnings from economists that NZ’s economy is vulnerable.- vulnerable can also mean potentially wonderful.

    I understand the frustration and impotence of the Left but the arrogance of assuming that the public are asleep is breathtaking. When the figure rises to 55% will posters here claim that the voters are comatose?
    Wake up to the reality. The careful centrist middle of the road policies of Honest John and his merry men and women are admired.

    • swordfish 10.1

      fisi “I find it amazing that only 49% of people support National given how well they have performed in the next six years” ???
      Yeah, you’ve never really got the hang of this ‘time’ business, have you, Fisi ?

      fisi “When the figure rises to 55% will posters here claim that the voters are comatose ?”
      Trouble for you is: Nat poll support frequently climbs to the mid-late 50s but they can never sustain it. Always plummet to sub-50.

      I still, incidentally, maintain that the polls systematically overstate National support. I realise some of the more excitable among you Tory cheerleaders have gleefully concluded that the 2014 Election proved the main pollsters right once and for all. But…
      (1) The Nats were frequently polling 50%+ during the final 4 months of the Campaign, ending up, of course, on 47%.
      (2) Both National’s pollster (Farrar-Curia) and Labour’s pollster (UMR) recorded a 2 point swing to the Nats over the final few days of the campaign (both, from memory, have suggested that this sudden swing was a voter backlash against Dotcom’s Big Reveal). Without that unexpected, last-minute 2 point swing, the major pollsters would, indeed, have clearly overstated Nat support during the final week or two.

      As it is, recent polls suggest a small (1.5-2.2 point) Right-to-Left swing since Sep 2014. At the last Election, the Govt Bloc beat the Oppo Bloc 49 to 46, with the broader Right winning by a clear 7 points: 53 to 46. The latest Colmar Brunton has the Govt just 2 points ahead of the Oppo and the Right Bloc just 4 points ahead. If the polls are still overstating like I think they are then I suggest that the Govt and Oppo Blocs are pretty much neck-and-neck with the broader Right just a couple of points in front.

      None of which is to deny that the Nats have enjoyed a remarkable run in the polls nor that the Oppo Bloc have much work ahead of them.

    • I heard from a friend that Congress will fast track the T.P.P.A.

      Can someone confirm/deny?

      • lprent 10.2.1

        Congress has been asked by Obama to put through a trade authority for the executive to get and sign the TPPA.

        It will be a difficult sell to get it through such a partisan congress. If he gets it, then he can try to fast track it. However many (most?) of these types of fast track authorities fail to get passed in congress. They don’t like abrogating their authority to meddle.

        Tim Groser is talking it up large and downplaying the downside.

        • Liam 10.2.1.1

          In fact, there’s a little more to it than that because congressional leaders have already come to a bipartisan agreement on the terms of such fast track authority.

          • lprent 10.2.1.1.1

            Yes, but there is more to it than the simple…

            The leaders of the house and the senate aren’t exactly able to stamp their authority in the way that they did when Johnson was running the senate (and had faithful fellows in the house). You are talking about a world that disappeared with the early 60s.

            As I understand it, the democratic leadership has some pretty severe problems with about 30 or so of their members, and the republicans are going to have issues with riders and a whole lot of partisan posing preparatory to next years elections.

            There are few things that are simple in the current US congress. That is especially when it comes to a republican dominated house and senate and a democratic executive. Nor when you are looking at fundamentalist republicans chasing the seats of compromiser republicans. And especially when everyone is focused on the elections next year.

            • Liam 10.2.1.1.1.1

              I think that is a fair comment.

              However, I think it is also fair to say that things have beyond Obama having a desire for fast tracking authority. As I understood the news, and without resorting to Google, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee (or at least the leadership of them) have agreed on the form of legislation.

        • Wayne 10.2.1.2

          On this issue (TPP and Congressional Trade Authority).

          I was talking recently to a highly informed person on this. The view was that trade authority would not have been requested unless it was thought it would get through Congress. The view is that republican support for free trade outweighs the dislike of the President.

          Similarly it would not have been sought unless the negotiations were in the endgame.

          So TPP might be a lot closer than many here think. And that will be a real test for the NZLP.

          • northshoredoc 10.2.1.2.1

            The US and Japan will never give us fair access to their agricultural and horticultural markets, hence why we would entertain proceeding with this is beyond my comprehension.

          • McFlock 10.2.1.2.2

            The view was that trade authority would not have been requested unless it was thought it would get through Congress. The view is that republican support for free trade outweighs the dislike of the President.

            Well, I agree with the first part to a degree – it’s the latest punt in a decades-long campaign that has seen successes and failures for both sides.

            But it’s not so much the support for free trade (which is fickle when repercussions are predicted for a legislator’s electorate, and is countered by a loathing for an apparent ceding of authority to international jurists), in my opinion.

            Corporate advertising and lobbyist dollars would be the main chance this has for getting through Congress. Essentially an alliance of tobacco, movies (g-rated and x-rated), recording industry, agricultural corporations, tech corps (basically everyone invited to sit in on the “secret” negotiations) are all in favour. That’s a lot of campaign financing.

          • lprent 10.2.1.2.3

            And that will be a real test for the NZLP.

            Not really. They have a standing policy on it.

            They will make a decision *when* and only if they see the text of the agreements. As I understand it, that means *all* of them. Including the ones that are meant to stay secret for 5 years or so.

            Once they have had time to digest those and to look through the implications, then they will make decisions about their support. It is likely to take more than 20 days.

            The testing point will be for National. If they want to push the power of the executive council, then they are welcome to do so. However if Tim Groser or National attempts to stuff it down Labour’s throats (and mine), then they will vote against the parliamentary bills.

            Activists, even those who are economic drys like myself, will start targeting repudiating the treaty on the general principles of transparency.

            Trade treaties and indeed any treaty shouldn’t be done in kind of daft secrecy that this one has been done in. As it stands at present, I can’t see that this treaty is anything other than a restraint of trade agreement for NZ and appears to have been done for reasons other than freer trade. That is something I am unwilling to accept as a fait accompli. I’m far more likely to start politically targeting the individuals responsible over the coming decades regardless which party they are from.

            I’d like to point out that politically I am on the economic right of the Labour party, have spent my working life in international trade, have supported virtually every free trade deal NZ has ever done (including the recent Korean deal), and I can’t see the point of this travesty of a ‘trade’ deal. National has an extremely hard sell for this pile of trash

            • Wayne 10.2.1.2.3.1

              “Repudiating the treaty”. Seriously?

              Iprent, you know that will never happen. Once TPP is done (if that be so), it is done.

              Unless of course you envisaged Labour being the junior partner in a Green/Labour govt. And then anything would be possible.

              • felix

                Then it’s all the more important that we all get to see the fucking thing.

                Your previous support for keeping it secret from the public was based on the idea that our negotiators couldn’t allow their position to be known by their counterparts.

                Now that you’ve accepted that everyone spies on everyone else and everyone knows it, that justification no longer stands.

                So why the secrecy? Show us the fucking thing and we’ll decide whether we think it’s in our interests.

              • lprent

                Depends if National manages to get the Labour on side, and if Labour MPs can explain it to their members doesn’t it? The arguments that went on within Labour when the Chinese FTA were going through were rather legendary but successful. The Labour MPs made a good case and had the information to do it with. They sold it during the process to everyone from their members to National’s members to businesses at all levels. I heard it from several different levels. The same happened as far back as CER when National sold that to the same kinds of audiences.

                In this case, they don’t and they cannot.

                The best I have ever heard is Phil Goff essentially telling me to trust him. Huh? I was asking him if it was actually a freer trade deal for NZ outside of agriculture and why. Admittedly that was back in 2012. It sounds like Labour’s MPs have been stuck in a barrel and fed shit since then.

                I can’t even see where we’d wind up with any better agricultural access. The US? We’re more likely to be competing with them for those markets just as we are now.

                The question was simple and still hasn’t been answered to my satisfaction. Where was the benefit to productive value-add export NZ businesses beyond what we already have? The answer should have been damn simple as well. As it is, all that I hear is the same simple-minded crap that you use… Essentially trust us

                Guess what – we don’t trust politicians. We prefer to have frank and clear information rather than “trust me”.

                Repudiated? After all exactly the same kinds of discussion went on when Labour ‘repudiated’ the ANZUS treaty by simply exercising their options within it.

                For instance, how well would a TTPA trade treaty withstand continued litigation against common pork-barrel practices of the US congress? Or some direct targeting of international corporations and individual’s tax policies in line with the IRS practices. Or to simply to change laws but leave with restricted grandfathering clauses in them – on taxation policies for instance

                Trade treaties require goodwill to operate. I can also see a lot of scope make the treaty unworkable if it is hard to get out of. But I suspect that will just be a matter of cost, and since I can’t see any benefits to NZ from the TPPA except for those who thrive on restraints of trade, the sooner we bite the bullet, the better.

                I can’t see any reason to extend any goodwill to either National or even the in-the-know-Labour MPs based on the manner in which this ‘treaty’ has been processed. I can see a lot of reasons to getting rid of the dickheads trying to impose this crap in this manner on us. That includes targeting politicians in their seats and list positions. If they can’t explain why the TTPA is good for kiwis, then they are clearly incapable of doing their job.

                But I tell you one thing that needs to happen. We need to change it so that the executive council can *never* again have the possibility of bind the people of NZ in a similar manner to a ‘trade’ treaty with no information than simple minded PR and insider ‘stakeholder’ pandering.

                Seems like an opportunity to revisit our constitutional powers of the executive.

              • Draco T Bastard

                Once TPP is done (if that be so), it is done.

                Nope. It can be undone as we still have our sovereignty no matter how much the corporations want to take it from us in attacks labelled as trade deals.

                • Gosman

                  Surprisingly I am in general agreement with your main point. If only more people articulated such a view.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    The problem seems to be that a lot of people think that once we’ve signed an agreement we can’t then pull out of it. Wayne and a lot of other politicians are a good example of this type of thinking. They have a tendency to think these things are permanent despite the breaking of international treaties, often unilaterally, throughout history.

                    The US dropping their gold standard in the 70s and thus breaking the Bretton Woods agreement is a good example. And, yes, I do realise that the world continued to act as if the agreement hadn’t been broken even though it had.

            • Gosman 10.2.1.2.3.2

              I don’t believe the negotiations for the TPPA are any more or less secret that negotiations for other treaties. Even international agreements you possibly support (e.g. those involving dealing with Climate change issues) have a high degree of secrecy around the actual negotiations. Do you support open negotiations for all international treaties or just for the TPPA?

    • Skinny 10.3

      Dishonest John will flutter off sometime next year if not sooner. English and a fair few other cronies will be joining them. The Northland Buy Election signals the tide is turning. Provincial New Zealander are waking up to the ponzi scheme.

      • fisiani 10.3.1

        Oh. I just saw a flying pig! We are not at the high tide mark yet let alone the tide turning.

        • rawshark-yeshe 10.3.1.1

          I didn’t know pigs needed a high tide to fly .. how amazing.

          • In Vino 10.3.1.1.1

            Well, you see, the gravitational pull of the moon makes the seas’ water a tiny bit lighter, so that is why we get tides.

            Why should the same not apply to pigs, thus enabling them their rare occasions of flight?

            Please do not try any experiments in your own home.

    • Murray Rawshark 10.4

      “Northland bridges. – will be built” No doubt starting with the removal of either Darby or Joan and sale to China via Oravida.

      “Iraq.- we are on the side of the good guys” No we’re not. Sectarian murderers don’t come categorised as good and bad and we regard the PKK as terrorists.

      • Paul 10.4.1

        Fisi is en example of what happens when arrogance and ignorance mix.

        A modicum of research by fisi would reveal how shallow his comment and ill-informed about Iraq is.

  11. NZJester 11

    I think the big question is how are they conducting these polls?
    If they are land-line only polls then the bias toward those with more disposable income and more likely to be National supporters is becoming higher and higher. Most people with limited funds are dropping their landlines in favor of pre-pay mobiles only and mostly only receiving and not making many calls to cut telephone costs to the minimum.
    Online and txt polls also tend to exclude those with less disposable income as they either do not have access to a computer and internet connection or they are not willing to part with the txt fee to send in a reply to a txt survey.

  12. Satiate me 12

    @nzjester. The last election debunked the landline only polls have bias myth. Can’t remember which lefty did the analysis but you can’t behind poverty as reason for poor polling.

    Might have been Danyl or was it pundit?

  13. Alan W 13

    hey Sable, how about a serious reply to Fisiani’s 10.30 am post – rather than your banal, ill-tempered comment at 7.41 am.
    Calling 49% of the voting electorate stupid is not particularly constructive.

    [lprent: Demanding behavioural changes on this site is the realm of the moderators. It is not the purview of pompous idiot trolls like yourself. You can yank on your dick/brain for pleasure elsewhere.

    Sable’s comment was an exact paraphrase of the electoral act. So what was your point? That you really could do with a personality transplant?

    This is your warning. Trying to usurp the role of a moderator and wasting my time again will result in long ban from this site. I was thinking of a couple of months… I figure that it’d take you that amount of time to read the policy. ]

    • Alan W 13.1

      Pardon???
      Sable said, “stupid people are allowed to vote too”
      How is that an exact paraphrase of the electorate act?????

      [lprent: You really are thick aren’t you? What is the basic principle of any law? Where does it say in the Electoral Act that to be able to vote you must not be stupid? There are limitations about age, coercion, residency, and prison residence. But there are none stopping the stupid from voting. Therefore they are entitled to.

      That you are entitled to vote is probably a good place to start thinking from. ]

      • te reo putake 13.1.1

        The Act allows most kiwi citizens to vote, regardless of mental capacity. The same rule does not apply to commenting here at TS, as you may soon discover.

        • Alan W 13.1.1.1

          So having a different political view makes someone mentally deficient?
          Good luck with that approach

          • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1.1

            They’re correlated, not causal. Sheesh.

            • Alan W 13.1.1.1.1.1

              typical left wing intellectual snobbery, again good luck appealing to the wider electorate with that approach, keep up the good work.
              yes, banned, I know.

                • infused

                  I’d suggest getting that peer reviewed.

                  • Lanthanide

                    It was peer reviewed, it was published in Psychological Science.

                    • The lost+sheep

                      Always good to read both the original papers and some peer review…

                      “there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like “every kid is a genius in his or her own way,” might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

                      “My speculation is that it’s not as simple as their model presents it,” Nosek said. “I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where ‘People I don’t know are threats’ and ‘The world is a dangerous place’. … Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful.”

          • infused 13.1.1.1.2

            yeah. the left wonder why they gain no traction. they’ve been saying this sort of shit now for years and still don’t see the problem.

          • te reo putake 13.1.1.1.3

            Nope. I’m pointing out that your behaviour here can also be seen as stoopid.

        • Gosman 13.1.1.2

          I thought there was a mental competency element in voting (i.e. if you are deemed mentally fit you can be struck off). However I could be wrong. since Sable was apparently referencing the Act he might be able to she some light on this.

          • McFlock 13.1.1.2.1

            Well, yes, but it’s pretty tight, as it only applies to compulsory treatment patients and those declared unfit to stand trial.

            Sop yes, technically there is an incapacity disqualification, but sadly most tories seem to sneak in just above the cut-off. Stupid people are indeed allowed to vote.

          • te reo putake 13.1.1.2.2

            (i.e. if you are deemed mentally fit you can be struck off)

            Gosman’s Freudian slip unintentionally reveals how Actoids would like the voters’ roll revamped. Signs of independent thought? No votes for you, leftist scum!

            • Gosman 13.1.1.2.2.1

              T’was indeed a slip up but I doubt it was Freudian. As much as I think many of you are completely bonkers I would never suggest you should be denied your democratic rights based on mental competency. I would prefer other criteria 😉

      • The lost+sheep 13.1.2

        It may be a paraphrase, but that doesn’t alter the fact it displays a breathtakingly facile assumption of the intellectual superiority of The Left.

        As such, and considering that Sable is willing to post it on a publicly accessible forum, it is the stupidest comment I’ve seen for some time.

        But I stand shoulder to shoulder with the moderators in defending Sables right to make a complete arse of his/her self in that manner.

        [lprent: You can make an arse of yourself as well and do so on a regular basis. I guess that is what happens when a herd animal like those damn wooly trolls leaves the flock.

        Sable isn’t “The Left”, any more than you are the voice of the jerkoffs of the world. Sable speaks for themself, just as your sticky hands speak for you.

        Just so long as they don’t cause me or the moderators any more work than is required, people can say what they like on OpenMike. Making work for me can consist of making comments that implicitly request me to look at peoples behaviour and finding that there isn’t anything to look at. You will find that listed under the self-martyrdom (or in your case the self-baatyrdom) offences. ]

      • Alan W 13.1.3

        Again, you and sable etc. are implying that anyone who votes right or rightish is intellectually challenged.
        Again, good luck with that novel approach, doesn’t seem to be working thus far.

        • Lanthanide 13.1.3.1

          Not sure how it’s “an approach”. Merely an observation.

        • McFlock 13.1.3.2

          No, it’s more accurate to say that on average, tories are less intelligent than lefties.

          The smartest tory is most likely smarter than your average lefty, but a random selection of lefties are more likely to be smarter than a random selection of tories.

          It’s actually a fairly basic concept. If you were a lefty you’d be more likely to understand it, though…

          • Phil 13.1.3.2.1

            No, it’s more accurate to say that on average, tories are less intelligent than lefties.

            No, that’s not right either.

            The original paper, which many on ‘the left’ jumped on with gusto was from Satoshi Kanazawa, of the London School of Economics. Kanazawa’s paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal, but does not take the additional step of robustly testing the accuracy or ‘revealed preference’ of those same peoples actions… this makes it about as reliable as taking the profile picture and hobbies of an online dating profile as the gospel-truth.

            The paper also measures ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ values, which does not necessarily mesh well with ‘left’ and ‘right’ in New Zealand.

            Bottom line is: the evidence for intelligence correlating with political preference is tenuous at best, and spurious at worst.

            • McFlock 13.1.3.2.1.1

              … but still fun to bring up when tories start whining 🙂

              • Phil

                … but still fun to bring up when tories start whining

                Fun like… being told your wrong?

                If the best you can come up with is metaphorical dick-measuring, then I think there is another reason people don’t debate with you.

                • One Anonymous+Bloke

                  being told you’re wrong

                  Are you ignorant of Kanai et al and the Hodson & Busseri findings regarding low IQ? Or are you just pretending they don’t exist for the purposes of your ‘argument’?

                  • Phil

                    I’m quite happy to acknowledge the existence of those papers. I’m also quite happy to link you to a very good critique of H&B that took literally 10 seconds to find:
                    http://wmbriggs.com/post/5118/

                    • One Anonymous+Bloke

                      That’s a lovely shiny blog science you’ve got there. What happened, couldn’t Briggs get it published anywhere credible?

                    • Phil

                      Swing… and a miss.

                      Come back when you have something useful to contribute OAB. I’ll wait. I’ve got a comfy chair and all five Game of Thrones novels that I’ve been meaning to read.

                      Take your time. No rush.

                • McFlock

                  me, personally?
                  lol

  14. The lost+sheep 14

    So that trashes the theory that the Northland By Election indicated a significant swing in Nation wide voter sentiment then.

    • Weepus beard 14.1

      Whose theory was that?

      There has been a lot of hope among socially conscious people that the cynical doings of this government will become apparent to the middle New Zealand voting block but that has not been the case so far. They are too busy watching The Block.

      The Northland by election result has indicated a significant swing in the Northland voter sentiment, National having been humiliated in a once safe seat, and the Northland by election result points to a wider dissatisfaction in rural communities with the level of infrastructure investment, but I haven’t seen a “theory” which claims a nationwide swing.

      You have though. Where?

      • The lost sheep 14.1.1

        See below for a very quick sampling of some comment at the time Weepus.

        The message in this latest poll is the same as it has been for about 6 years now. The left need to stop negatively obsessing about the opposition, and start putting all their energy into understanding what is it about THEIR OWN GAME that is failing to convert voters.

        Frankly, i despair of that happening. I simply fail to detect anything like the required threshold of positive energy available to the NZ Left.

        No wonder the masses find The Block more compelling.

        Third termitis is really starting to set in / today it’s the first sunlight shining on the dirt .. and there is so much more to come out. the teflon is cracked. / the beginning of narrative showing National are an arrogant, out-of-touch government that can’t even retain it’s safest seat. / Things are not going to go up for National from here./ Key and the Nacts are on the back foot now and will soon be on the run / Key’s a jonah. Swallowed by the great fish of the north. / the result is a wonderful result for the left.

    • fisiani 14.2

      Wishful thinking is not a theory. Where is there an evidence that National is less popular now than in 2008? Why is there an assumption that if only people woke up then they would stop voting National?
      Why is there an assumption that NZF wants a Labour/Greens government?
      By 2017 Grant Robertson will have been an MP for 9 years and never spent a day in government.
      By 2017 The Greens will have been in Parliament for 21 years and never spent a day in government.
      In 2020 if Honest John is still leader and Steven Joyce is still campaign manager it will be 12 years and 24 years respectively and in 2023 it will be 15 years and 27 years. meaning 18 and 30 years till a possible change
      When will Grant and the Greens wise up and realise that they are plain wrong.
      Sometimes when the tide of history is still coming in the rise in the number of National MP’s in 2008, 2011 and 2014 is still not the high tide mark. I suspect that will peak in 2023

      • Clemgeopin 14.2.1

        LOL, fisi! I enjoyed that.
        But remember this: In the end, you, me and all will be dead and gone to smell the roses with all our ‘predictions’ and ‘theories’. Sensing the future, like you and uncle Rasputin before.

      • Skinny 14.2.2

        Peters is no mug he can see National imploding from within. Collins is becoming bolder by the day. With Little firmly in charge in the Labour camp Winston will back a winning team. Key and his cronies have had a feast on taxpayers flogging off anything not bolted down, lining their rich mates pockets in the process. The media hacks are turning ugly on dishonest John, for good reason too. His demeanor says he doesn’t care any longer, same applies with Bill English.

        I do enjoy reading your cheerleading rants Fisiani, i get plenty of chuckles please keep em coming, I did miss them when the buy election result became obvious. Hope ya tough it out over the next few years cobbah, things are going to cut up rough if your not a fan of Judith Collins.

  15. swordfish 15

    I see Young Master Farrar has just posted on this latest Colmar Brunton. As always, I’m greatly amused by his inate tendency towards sleight-of-hand. It’s virtually his default-position. Take, for example, this line:

    “You’d think (from recent print media coverage) the Government was trailing the opposition, rather than being 18% ahead of Labour.”

    Well, yes, David, but how about, you know, answering your own implicit question ? What’s the Govt vs Oppo margin ? It’s a mere 2 Points, isn’t it, David ? 50/48. Which doesn’t seem anywhere near as impressive as 18 points, does it, Darling ?

    • Liam 15.1

      True. But given how consistent Winston Peters has been in the past in his preference that the largest polling party should get the first chance to form a government, such a sizeable gap should be worrying to anyone who thinks Mr Peters is going to remain in that opposition bloc post-2017.

      • swordfish 15.1.1

        Is it “…..his preference that the largest polling party should get the first chance to form a government…..” or that NZF will simply talk first to the leading party ? There is an implicit difference.

        But, yeah, in general terms, I take it as read that NZF can go either way (though increasingly over recent years, he’s seemed more comfortable with Labour. Not only due to fundamental Nat-NZF personality and policy conflicts but also because of NZF’s changing support-base. In the 90s, NZF drew its support fairly evenly from previous Nat and Lab supporters alike, but I think it’s fair to say (based entirely on memory*) a little more from the former than the latter. These days, the polling evidence (as piecemeal as it is) suggests former Labour supporters comprise the lion’s share and that a majority of NZFers prefer a Labour-led Government.

        Given that Winnie owes his Northland win far more to Left Bloc supporters than Nat defectors, I think that logic still stands.

        *I’ll try to check this assertion by digging up some old NZ Election Study data when I have time. Pretty sure his 90s support was roughly 60% former Nats/40% former Lab.

        • Liam 15.1.1.1

          I think he is more likely to go with National and here’s why:

          – It seems that when your government is starting to look a bit ragged, NZF will prop you up for one final term. It happened in 1996 and it happened in 2005. If it happens in 2017 it’ll practically become a constitutional convention.

          – Peters might owe his initial victory to the Left but there’s no reason to assume he’ll feel obliged to reciprocate. Northland is a very conservative electorate. There’s no suggestion anybody from Labour could have won the seat. Winston Peters represents a certain type of conservatism that will always have some appeal in the heartland.

          – Furthermore, if the Labour Party improves its positions then, unless National also crumbles, it will win some votes back from NZF. I wouldn’t be surprised if NZF actually struggles to make 5% in a scenario as Labour’s polling moves closer to 40%. This will make retaining Northland very important for NZF.

          – And for the reasons set out above, Northland voters don’t want a Labour led government. For whatever reasons, they punished National in the by-election but there’s nothing to say that means they want to be governed by the big party most associated with metropolitan liberalism or state socialism.

          Once the schadenfreude fades away, the decision to concede a conservative seat to a centrist party may prove to be a strategic error on the part of Mr Little.

          • DS 15.1.1.1.1

            Alternatively, there’s the small problem that while Peters mights have been able to work alongside the likes of Jim Bolger, he and Key haven’t so much burnt bridges as nuked them.

        • Grantoc 15.1.1.2

          If you want Peter’s to be part of a Labour led coalition, the last thing you want to do is to tell him that he ‘owes’ Labour for his success in Northland.

          Whether he does or not is a moot point, but Peter’s is not the the sort of politician who will be cowered into supporting any party because he is told that he ‘owes’ them. He made it very clear at the time of the by election that he did not do any deals with Little, nor did he want to.

          Tell him that he ‘owes’ Labour, and he’ll scamper off to National.

          • swordfish 15.1.1.2.1

            Nah, not a matter of Labour/the Left telling Winnie he owes them. Simply a matter of Winnie and his trusted advisors doing the math and realising that most of his By-Election success came courtesy of Oppo Bloc voters (and looking at the poll breakdowns and realising most of NZF’s nationwide support derives from former Labour voters who favour a Labour-led Government). I’m sure NZF have already worked all this out for themselves.

            • Grantoc 15.1.1.2.1.1

              That may be so; however if the Colmar Brunton poll is to be believed, the by election result is irrelevant, along with any associated analysis concerning voter behaviour.

              In the context of the CB poll, the Northland by election is a complete aberation. Projecting nationwide trends and signals from its outcome is a nonsense.

              I’m sure NZF understand this too.

  16. Kriss X 16

    Attacking National is not the way to change the situation. That approach has failed miserably in recent elections

    Labour needs to raise it’s game.

    It had better do so soon for everyone’s sake.

    • Stuart Munro 16.1

      Given the way the property market is eating the economy it would be profoundly irresponsible not to attack National.

      Learning why is part of the process of the opposition raising its game: this government is fecking useless at practically everything. When the opposition know in detail what they should be doing instead they’re halfway to being electable.

      • Kriss X 16.1.1

        They are clearly pretty good at winning elections. JK is a gifted communicator and spin doctor.

        I say it again; Labour needs to raise its game, or ordinary Kiwis are in for a hard road ahead. No so much the wealthy, who we hear are doing fine.

      • Phil 16.1.2

        Except the issues at-play in the Auckland housing market today are fundamentally no different to those that were at-play a decade or a decade-and-a-half ago.

        Labour, at the time, was quite happy to ride the wave of wealth-generated electability, and the policies they’ve proposed since then do nothing to address the issues.

    • One Anonymous+Bloke 16.2

      It worked perfectly well for John Key in 2008.

  17. Bill 17

    What’s Labour got on offer that’s substantially different to what the Nats are dishing out?

    Nothing. They intend to do the same old shit in a slightly different way…an emphasis ‘here’ instead of ‘there’…keep an even keel. Not good enough. Nowhere near good enough.

  18. redeye 18

    Is it not a bit presumptuous to include NZ First in the left block?

    • There’s one of two red guards here who would ask the same question of Labour 😉 But, technically, it’s the opposition block, not the left block. And given that the current Government is basically one party with three politically bankrupt and entirely compliant contractors as ballast, the opposition block is a relatively vibrant place.

      • Liam 18.1.1

        It’s been interesting to see the evolution of the word “block” as a substitute for its homophone “bloc” in recent years. It’s kind of like Yogi Berra’s claim that “Texas has a lot of electrical votes.”

        We are all guilty of it from time to time, but the idea of government and opposition “blocks” conjures images in my mind of a debating chamber filled up with Lego bricks.

  19. plumington 19

    I can’t agree more with Kriss X
    Nothing really changed in the last Labour governed 3 terms that’s why IMO Labour has lost a lot of ground with people who trusted (me included)won’t vote for them unless REAL CHANGE is brought about ,perhaps traditional Labour values could be a good start?

    • Kriss X 19.1

      Labour were once the party of the average person. They have tried to be a minority advocacy group, to their detriment.

      They have forgotten that: Pacifica people, Maori, Lesbians, Feminists, Disabled, and white middle class men, all want similar things. They want a reasonable standard of living, protection of basic rights and a voice to express themselves.

      Appealing [only] to – minority – and special interest groups is not going to win a – majority – vote. For obvious reasons !

      So come on Labour, give NZ a viable party next time around.

  20. keyman 20

    People on benofits shouldn’t be allowed to vote they surplus to requirements

    • Well, there’s the definitive answer to the ‘are righties stupid?’ debate upthread.

    • McFlock 20.2

      So the most vulnerable people already alienated from society should be further disenfranchised? Sounds like a fizzy little plan there, nothing can go wrong.

    • DoublePlusGood 20.3

      What “requirements” exactly do you mean? I mean, if you’re going to make a dumb statement, you should at least try to provide some explanation so people can follow along on your journey of mental development.

  21. Kriss X 21

    Mr Flock that is clearly not what I said. Do you think those people do not want a fair go the same as others ?

    Keep it up and National will thank you.

  22. Atiawa 22

    Labour Electorate committees (LEC’s) throughout the country will be conducting their AGM’s this month and next. If you want change or a voice in NZ’s oldest established political party, sign up for membership and get along to these meetings. Most, if not all of them will welcome new blood with open arms. You may not always agree with other’s, but invariably I have found that there is more that we agree upon than what we disagree upon.
    It’s easy to be critical from the side-line’s. It’s easier to make change from within. Get off your laptops and try to make a difference.

    • lprent 22.1

      The problem is (speaking as an old veteran of LECs) is that I really cannot afford the 2-3 (or even 4) hour blocks that LEC meetings take. Nor the frantic rush to get to them from work (why are the damn things scheduled so early? The time was set before electric lights?). And I’m usually starved because I come straight from work.

      I’m not even going to mention the serial speeches (one person at a time!), hard chairs, and why you need thermal underwear in Auckland in winter…..

      Please explain the benefits? Apart from the coordinated squirming as an obsessional gets up to sprout off for 10 minutes…

      • Atiawa 22.1.1

        I hear ya. Standing orders can become rather tiresome and yes there are always a few who enjoy the sound of their own voice. Our LEC recognised that it was unattractive for members to attend a two or three hour meeting albeit once a month to learn that the capitation fee’s remained unpaid or hear the treasurers report, so we left those proceedings to 4 or 5 executive members who would meet for an hour or less to deal with that ‘trivia” prior to a pre-planned general discussion meeting. Two or three members will provide a topic each and perhaps speak to it for 10 minutes while the next 30 minutes would enable others to question or put their 10 cents worth.
        A strong chair-person with a timing device is a must along with Chatham house rules and a healthy respect for opposing views.
        It ain’t perfect but robust debate is the victor (usually) and has been known to take your mind of a sore backside.

        • Anne 22.1.1.1

          The worst part of LEC meetings is all the dammed correspondence – most of it from HQ in Wellington. And each piece is usually 2/3 or more pages long. Since God made little apples, Labour members and delegates have begged the relevant sections of the Party to cut out all the verbiage and get down to the nitty gritty in a few short, sharp sentences. But its no good, they can’t seem to help it. Its like a typed version of the conference delegate who gets up every 5 minutes to speak and bores everyone to death with their long winded diatribes.

          • Atiawa 22.1.1.1.1

            How long before we are able to remain at home to participate in LEC meetings via skype or some other method of visual communication with voting buttons etc???
            Multi tasking, no sore bum, increase in participants, no emotional bs, prior reading of head office papers, information sharing with the SIS and more….

      • Skinny 22.1.2

        I agree it does your head In meeting straight after work. I’d rather weekend meeting s where everyone is freshened up. Strongly chaired, so not too much waffle is tolerated. I guess in big city’s its a hassle trying to get people back out after they have battled traffic to get home.

      • Mark Craig 22.1.3

        I sort of agree Iprent .I used to go along every month with the meetings with Tizards father .He was a great old stick,in the old Otahuhu LEC.God he was waspish .I think a masters in History.He started off in Onehunga from memory after Hugh Watt.Old Bob was a labour stalwart thru and thru .Unfortunately we lost his touch to the abominable Douglas and Prebble ,and to be fair we have never recovered.What a pair of treasonous wreckers they were.I can write no more ,too sick to the pit of my stomach .I weep for my beloved country .

    • Colonial Rawshark 22.2

      We’re trying hard to get the Dunedin South LEC to sort some shit out. We’ll see how it goes.

  23. Pat 23

    give it time…the fundamentals are stuffed and the election is hardly just around the corner.

  24. millsy 24

    The polls have pretty much been cemented in place for the last 7 or 8 years.

    And nothing looks like budging them.

  25. reason 25

    What the latest poll and the northland buy-election both show is the nats are the largest minority …………….

    National supporters are a minority of New Zealanders …………. by quite a margin.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    6 days ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    1 week ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Taxpayers get a smarter and fairer system
    One of the biggest IT projects ever undertaken in the state sector has successfully passed its latest hurdle with the transition of more than 19.7 million taxpayer accounts from one Inland Revenue computer system to another. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash ...
    3 weeks ago