Dunne reckons next election will be close

Written By: - Date published: 9:22 am, July 26th, 2019 - 48 comments
Categories: death with dignity, drugs, greens, labour, national, nz first, peter dunne, political parties, uncategorized, united future - Tags: , ,

Peter Dunne was one of the more forgettable MPs that we have had.  Through the vagarities of a televised worm and National’s implosion in 2002 he led a small party for a while.  The party fell apart and dwindled into a rump of one.  Dunne eventually held the seat of Ohariu through National’s generosity and performed a sycophantic roll in distorting proportionality and allowing National to keep power.

His time as a minister was highlighted by his refusal to allow Helen Kelly to legally take cannabis derivatives.  This was utter reefer madness by his part.

He has engaged in some post political career reckons. I read his latest and I wondered if he had sneakily tried some medicinal reefer. Because his reckons made no sense.

He thinks that next year’s election will be a nailbiter.

I agree that we should never, ever take anything for granted but Dunne’s analysis is pretty flawed.

He correctly points out that no minor party that has gone into coalition or support has survived the next election.

But he then presumes that both the Greens and NZ First will disappear. Although NZ First’s demise is possible I suspect that the Green’s support is resilient and the increasing focus on environmental issues should ensure that they remain.

And he talks about how these disappearing third party seats will have to be won by Labour. He says this:

For the Labour-led Government, that would be disastrous. Between them, New Zealand First and the Greens hold 17 of the Government’s 63 seats in Parliament. Their removal by failing to cross the threshold would make Labour’s re-election task nigh impossible.

While it would pick up some seats as a consequence it would be most unlikely to pick up the minimum of 15 it would need to remain in government, assuming of course it was to hold all of its current 46 seats. Even the failure of just one of the parties (New Zealand First most likely) to gain 5 percent would make Labour’s task very difficult – it would need to pick up most of the previously allocated New Zealand First seats and then hope the Greens scored at least their number in the present Parliament to have a chance of carrying on in government. 

Those stark realities alone raise the possibility of Labour having to cede electorate seats to its partners (Wellington Central, which it holds, perhaps for the Greens and Whangarei, which it does not hold but has a strong vote in, to New Zealand First) but that would be extremely politically risky for all three parties given that they have piously railed against such arrangements in the past. The current Government has even talked of its intention to remove the one-seat threshold altogether, although that talk has fallen eerily quiet in recent months.

For National, on the other hand, that scenario is far more attractive. Again, assuming it were to hold all its current seats, regain Botany, and see ACT over the line again in Epsom, it would need to win just four of the nine current New Zealand First/Greens seats to be able to form a government.

What Dunne fails to mention and appreciate is that current polling has Labour at 42% and National at 38%.  This would give Labour 63 seats out of a 120 seat Parliament.  In fact Dunne studiously ignores current polling, consistently trots out right wing attack lines against Labour and against Ardern and not once even hints at let alone acknowledges National’s leadership problems.

His final sentence is a doozie:

Whatever its outcome, and it is far too early to make any predictions, a number of existing norms will be shattered.

If it is far too early to make any prediction how can he say that a number of existing norms will be shattered?

48 comments on “Dunne reckons next election will be close”

  1. Dennis Frank 1

    Dunne pretending he ain't done.  A sensible centrist who kept being unable to learn how to use centrism as a political lever.  He'd probably cite his career path as evidence of success, but his centrist party withered on the vine, and history proves he couldn't grow it.

    So predicting minor party failure is probably freudian slippage attempting to ramp itself up into futurism.  Because he couldn't do it, he can't see any basis for them to do it.  Even though the basis is evident.

    For him to be proven right, this govt would have to degenerate into failure sufficiently for the Greens and NZF to seem each partly responsible for the failure.  Currently all three parties in govt are demonstrating sufficient competence to survive.  Equally, something would have to reverse the slide of the Nats, and no such x factor is even on the horizon let alone present.

    Then, as you imply, ignoring current polls in prognosis is rather perverse.  His reasoning is strongest when he cites precedent, yet his analysis past that point amounts to little more than ruminating and what ifs.  Nor is he reading the national mood.

  2. ianmac 2

    Lends weight to the idea that past politicians should pack it in. If he is that wise he would still be a serving MP. 

    Mind you we could get a bizarre result like the Trump/Johnson  becoming Trump/Johnson/Bridges all of them joining hands to sort out the World.

    • Rapunzel 2.1

      Trump/Johnson is ample warning, anything like that is a step way too far for all but the most deluded of NZers.

    • simbit 2.2

      Trump, Johnson, Putin, Erdogan et al. = end of empire. Neither surprising or necessarily scary. Actually in many ways reassuring…

  3. bwaghorn 3

    The fact the the right wing news hags are already attacking Winston almost gaurentee s a labour win.  

    Because national can not win with out another party's help .

    The only thing that could stop that is the Jones boy hes proved hell jump into the nats pocket for a few trinkets. 

    • roy cartland 3.1

      Jones and Mark. Both are much better fits for the NP, in fact I was almost surprised Jones wasn't parachuted in as the new leader. Could still happen…

  4. Rosemary McDonald 4

    This Government is probably our most idealistic since the Third Labour Government of 1972-75, which similarly struggled to convert its bold ideas into practice …

    I agree.

    If you don't agree with that statement mickysavage then provide evidence that there has been significant conversion of 'bold ideas into practice' by this government.

    (And how about doing this without your usual 'attack is the best line of defense' tactic and refrain from shooting the messenger…in this case an MP from a minor party that actually held an electorate seat for many, many years.)

    • Kevin 4.1

      Who are you quoting?

      • Rosemary McDonald 4.1.1

        ffs.  Have you actually read the article mickysavage has linked to? You know, the one Dunne wrote for Newsroom? 

        I make no apologies for not providing a(nother) link to an article that should have automatically have been read by anyone reading an article critiquing said article.

        • Kevin 4.1.1.1

          I would have used the block quote like Mickey did, but that's just me. Chill out and have a good day.

          • Rosemary McDonald 4.1.1.1.1

            Very deft distraction from the actual content of my comment there Kevin, and fool me fell for it.

            Still waiting for evidence from the post's author debunking Dunne's claim…

            This Government is probably our most idealistic since the Third Labour Government of 1972-75, which similarly struggled to convert its bold ideas into practice …

    • McFlock 4.2

      Lab4 was pretty idealistic, and managed to follow through. Sucks but true. Just wasn't left wing in its ideals.

  5. Anne 5

    When it comes to retired politicians and their utterings, it sometimes helps to go back to the past. Dunne was lucky. He swept into parliament in 1984 under the triumphant Lange-led Labour banner. He was a member of the right wing faction and embraced the neoliberal philosophy led by Roger Douglas. Soon after Helen Clark became leader in 1993, he found himself isolated from his parliamentary colleagues so he resigned and became an independent MP.

    I went through a process of isolation inside the Labour Party in the early 1980s (in my case it was due to mistaken identity) so I know the feelings of bitterness and betrayal. Dunne will not have forgotten how he was treated back then and now we have another woman prime minister who learnt the trade in part from Helen Clark. He is unlikely to be too kindly disposed towards the present Labour-led government.

    • "…………so I know the feelings of bitterness and betrayal".

      Hopefully @ Anne, you don't still hold them. Usually the perpetrators aren't worth it. Often they're an eternal source of humour for me.

      If you do – just imagine them in the nuddy or something. I've always thought of Dunne in the same way I imagine Wayne Wayne hold the ladder steady. The only thing I remember about the bow tie is how a poor little rich kid mate of mine from Johnsonville (actually the son of one of J'ville and Newland's early real estate developers) ripped off a few of his fence palings – stuffing them in to daddy's Merc.

      • Anne 5.1.1

        OWT I have long passed the feelings of individual betrayal. But you never forget and that would be the case with Peter Dunne. That was the thrust of my comment.

        Actually my experience went much further than a bit of political betrayal and included criminal activity but that's another story.

        • OnceWasTim 5.1.1.1

          Good good @ Anne.  I have had, AND heard of similar stories (including the last bit).  It's why I've become increasingly cynical about the state of our public service as it stands these days. 

          By the way, from what I've seen of your past posts/comments, I seem to remember you've had employment disputes. Bottom line – best never agree to any sort of confidentiality agreement.

          • Anne 5.1.1.1.1

            The "employment disputes" turned out to be merely symptomatic of something more serious that was going on. I can't say more than that.

  6. Robert Guyton 6

    "Peter Dunne was one of the more forgettable MPs that we have had."

    Let's completely forget him then.

    • Anne 6.1

      Can't agree with that Robert. He was part of a very interesting time in NZ politics and the full story has yet to be told. What was happening inside the Labour Party in the 1970s and 80s shaped our political scene for years to come and still shapes it to some degree.

  7. lprent 7

    Although NZ First’s demise is possible I suspect that the Green’s support is resilient and the increasing focus on environmental issues should ensure that they remain.

    I'd say that you're a bit starry eyed. The greens have a constituency for sure. Not a particularly robust one in electoral terms as they often tend to be political fashionistas rather than capable of sustained staying power.

    I'd say that NZ First support is pretty resilient. Sure they dropped below the 5% threshold in 2008. However that was to just 4.07% which made them the 4th party in list vote in that election (above Act, Peter Dunnes party, the Maori party). https://electionresults.org.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html

    That was on the back of some pretty disgusting and incorrect allegations in a hit by  Act, who as usual were acting for National, about what can only be described as sloppy accounting. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First#2008_general_election

    In the months before the 2008 general election, New Zealand First became embroiled in a dispute over donations to the party from Owen Glenn, the Vela family and Bob Jones. This resulted in an investigation into party finances by the Serious Fraud Office on 28 August 2008 and an investigation into Peters by the Privileges Committee.[74] On 29 August 2008 Peters stood down from his ministerial roles while the investigations were ongoing.[75] Although the Serious Fraud Office and the police found that Peters was not guilty of any wrongdoing, the episode harmed Peters and the party in the lead-up to the election.[76]

    Having observed NZ First for a large number of years including attending a number of their conferences for this site, I've come to the conclusions that

    1. they have a pretty strong mandate and constituency, albeit one that I personally don't have a lot of time for. 
    2. they feel like a political party at conference level (and I have spent a lot of time at political party conferences for Labour at regional and national level in the last 35 years). They definitely don't feel like a one-man band, and Peters didn't dominate the usual waffling, bitching and ranting by delegates and politicians.
    3. there looked to be a respectable number of moderately competent political bods capable of stepping into the leadership (Shane Jones not being one of them).
    4. in my view, the only real concern for the party is if and when Winston Peters steps down and the inevitable succession tomfoolery begins.

     I don't know the guy, but I think it'd take a debilitating disease to get Peters to step down and not just die while in office. I sure as hell don't think that this current National party has a shit show of extracting too many votes from NZ First in the coming election. 

    Personally I'm more worried about the Green's electoral support because of how damn flaky it has been during my time around politics. So far it has held up ok. But this is their first time inside a government and partially responsible for what it does, and I always worry about the fashionistas who soft poll for them actually turning up at the polling booths.

    But I agree that Peter Dunne has become a political flake post parliament.

    • Enough is Enough 7.1

      I am hopeful that NZ First slips below the magical 5% mark.

      They are the hand break that is preventing this government from doing anything more just than tinkering. 

      CGT, the removal of three strikes, and subsidising farmers under the ETS are three examples of where NZ First is holding things back. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but I think we will see a much more progressive government addressing the real issues we face, if the conservative hand break of Winston was not in the cabinet room.

      • Naki man 7.1.1

        Why would you want the removal of three strikes?
        I don’t think labour want to do any more than just tinkering

        • Rapunzel 7.1.1.1

          Why can't three strikes be applied when fraudsters commit a comprehensive set of offences that often aren't revealed until the full impact of the damage to others is set in place and made clear with little chance of recompense.

          If that was added it might make sense.

      • lprent 7.1.2

        I hope not. If you think short-term, then you might get some advantage. But all that would happen is that you store up political problems for the future. Think of the kinds of fun that a FPP system caused in NZ prior to MMP. Or what is happening under strong FPP systems like the UK and US right now.

        There is a large constituency for the kind of morally conservative and economically left leaning person that NZ First services. If they can’t express themselves politically then they are about the most destructive thing you can have in politics long term as they get more and more frustrated.

        You could say the same about the extreme left and right as well (for me it is often hard to distinguish between them and the other dystopian/utopian anarchists). The difference is that those groups are all too fractured to be of too much real political importance. In any healthy political system their natural level of agreement involves a group of just one, or they go into inherently limited leader-guru-follower modes (ie like the christian political groups tend towards).

        But the kinds of people who support NZ First are naturally collaborative. Under our MMP system, if NZF really died, then they’d head into supporting Labour where most of them came from. The rest were soft Nats and are likely to follow. Then where would Labour be? They’d be railing against having the kinds of policies that Labour needs more than they do already.

        As it is, it is easier to trade at a coalition government level. In the meantime education rather than what would effectively be political coercion works over time and (most importantly) doesn’t frustrate them. They carry on learning as they stay involved rather than trying to fight the battles of some distant mythic past.

        Suffer them use them as the success stick. Know that when you eventually get them to agree to something that they’d have condemned outright a decade ago, that social progress has actually been made, and it can’t be reversed easily.

        Easy wins done by political coercion are pretty useless. I’d suggest that you should not chase their illusions.

  8. Michael 8

    I think Dunne may be correct with his conclusion, although I think his premises are dubious. The outcomes of elections under MMP are always close. Labour hasn't achieved much since taking office, especially for its electoral base (in contrast to the scores it's made for its elite). The Party is already displaying dangerous signs of complacency, which I'd expect to see in a third term government with a few policy wins under its belt, instead of a first-term one that came into office with no real idea of what to do once it scored itself all the perks (hence all the "working groups" that were really only kicks for touch). The Nats, under Crusher, will be formidable campaigners, with all that money and media space. They will play dirty (of course), with lots of dog whistle blowing to their rabid supporters.

  9. WeTheBleeple 9

    People died and continue to die because that moron Dunne legalised synthetic cannabis. A backtrack was too little too late this nasty grass became common and now there's a market for it.

    And of course he was corrupt and compromised.

    /father-son-dunne-deals/

    The biggest sack of shit in a bow tie since Peewee Herman.

  10. Phil 10

    We've had eight elections under MMP. There have only been two, maybe three, where the result was not obvious coming into election day. So, on a purely statistical basis, Dunne is probably right. 

  11. Formerly Ross 11

    He correctly points out that no minor party that has gone into coalition or support has survived the next election.

    Really? Didn’t the Māori Party support National in 2008, 2011 and 2014? Sure they’re gone now but it took three elections! 🙂

    http://www.maoriparty.org/confidence_supply

  12. Stuart Munro. 12

    It reeks of self-justification – Dunne's small party withered and died of lack of principle. Dunne will be remembered chiefly for his murderous error of legalizing synthetic cannabis.

    Both NZF and the Greens are tender of course. But the former does tend to pick up close to elections, possibly from protest votes. While Winston breathes talk of its demise is premature. The Greens are not without problems, but they have a solid core of support and probably pick up a disproportionate share of new voters. Efforts on climate change will only help them.

    But the important difference is that Labour recognizes it needs its partners and takes some care not to cannibalize them. They are much better treated than the Maori party was, their concerns are heard and some at least are implemented. As a result neither party shows signs of wholesale abandonment by its supporters, though there is plenty of muttering about issues like mass immigration and weak responses to the theft of water rights.

    • Phil 12.1

      the former [NZF] does tend to pick up close to elections, possibly from protest votes.

      This is one of the most frustratingly enduring falsehoods of NZ politics.

      NZF has over-performed what their polling says they 'should' produce on election day just twice (2011 and 2014) and in both cases were legitimate last minute events that got Winston traction which could never be picked up by the last pre-election polls. In all other elections NZF has had an utterly unremarkable run of polling coming into election day. 

      • Stuart Munro. 12.1.1

        Mmm – I've heard it said that all minor parties have this characteristic to some degree, so that their mid-term polling is superficially frightening (if one wishes them to survive). 

  13. Chris T 13

    I know if  doesn't fit your hatred, but Dunne kept Ohariu for so long because he was an excellent electorate MP.

    Unless you think the only reason he spent 33 years winning the thing, including under several various Labour govts and even for a while as a Labour MP, because of National.

    Gee. And the left say National are nasty and greedy. 

    As for the election, after Ch Ch if it is close, the COL will have had make a complete hash of things

    • Rapunzel 13.1

      Do you have clarification of the "nasty and greedy", perhaps who you are referring that back to? All I read were a few opinions which is quite normal. 

  14. mosa 14

    Just what we need another right wing commentator !!!!
    Of course the election will be close between the two main parties as Nationals vote is still holding up despite some slippage and Bridges less than inspiring performance.

    Winston will be back but the Greens i am not so sure unless they can harness that millennial vote.

    Dunne was always a political prostitute he would go with anyone to feather his own nest.

    His treatment of Helen Kelly will forever tarnish his reputation such as it is.

    And his involvement with a certain political commentator was hid well by Key and the others in return for his political survival.

  15. Awe shucks @ Chris T. I'm so very very sorry if you feel as though I've been a part of something that's been a bit of a meany to you.

    Can you think of anything I could do to make things better?

    • Rapunzel 15.1

      Oh so it was you "Tim"? Chris T seems to have bit of an affection for "nagativity".

  16. McFlock 16

    Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a downside for Labour at this stage. But if they govern alone, or with NZ1 but not the greens, I'd worry that Labour will creep into natlite territory and end up back in Lab5's stale last half.

    Labgrn in 2020 and I reckon we'll see some more fundamental shifts towards social justice.

    • Rosemary McDonald 16.1

      I'd worry that Labour will creep into natlite territory …

      Some of us are seeing them as such now.

      In fact, I almost prefer the Other Mob purely from the standpoint of them being honestly hateful as opposed to this Current Mob's pretense of kindness towards some of their constituents.

      • McFlock 16.1.1

        Yeah, the perfect is often the enemy of the good these days. It's a recurring topic.

        I just hope you don't do a CV and go from "almost" to "actually".

  17. CHCoff 17

    Baring major fraud, wouldn't see it myself.

    The Govt. partys are not in campaign mode, they are governing, so that's probably significant for further bumps in the current environment.

    The % of un polled voters not part of the beltway will be greater this time around, & few to none of those will be National.

    Additionally, NZ1st always does better than is said normally anyway, when has there been an election when NZ1st has not been discounted before hand in the build up?

    On the flip side of that, the Greens are usually/often rated higher than what the results give, which given current beltway placings, could be something requiring abit more thought for them.

  18. swordfish 18

     
    Bizarro analysis from the fellow with the Hairdo & Bow-Tie.

    Dunne appears to have been either drunk / high / blissfully bewildered or indulging in a deliberate exercise of quite outrageous obfuscation.

    I typed up the following response late last night when I was half-asleep (which is OK when you're 20, you can wing it, but when you're about to hit 55 as I am in a few weeks time then you pretty much only have two world-weary braincells left to rub together as it is, so tiredness can impede clarity & coherence) … but hopefully this'll make some sort of raw commonsense:

    Sitting right at the heart of what appears to be a quite profound confusion is Dunne's strange fixation not only on Seat numbers per se (rather than the comparative Party Vote percentages that determine those seat numbers) but more particularly with the notion of how difficult it will be for Labour at the next Election to pick up an apparently very specific, distinct & crucial little group of seats previously "allocated" to its Junior Coalition Partners. Dunne seems to see the outcome of the next Election as dependent on some sort of cosmic struggle between Labour & National for this idiosyncratic little collection of former NZF/Green seats that are now apparently up for grabs. It's such an odd way of conceiving things.

    Indeed, as I'll show below, it's almost as if he believes we're still living under FPP, with all seats being Geographical Constituencies that need to be won through local campaigning. Perhaps because (with National's conspicuous rubber-stamp endorsement in Ohariu) that's how his one-man UF-band remained in Parliament for all those years.

    He argues that it's likely that either one or both Junior Coalition Partners will fail to make it back after the next Election. I think he's wrong on this … based on comparative historical poll analysis, I've felt for quite some time that both will cross the threshold in 2020, but let's put that to one side for the moment.

     

    Dunne's curious argument proceeds in the following way: (my comments in parentheses)

    (1) The Ardern Govt has 63 seats. Between them, the Greens & NZF hold 17 of these.

    (2) The "removal" (very odd phrase from Dunne) of these 17 seats, as a result of the two Junior Coalition Partners falling below the 5% threshold, would make Labour's re-election chances "nigh impossible."

    (3) Why ? Because although Labour would "pick up some seats as a consequence" (a remarkably vague formulation … what's Dunne referring to ?), it's very unlikely to pick up "the minimum of 15 it would need to remain in government". (He never comes close to explaining Why this would be such a monumental task or how increased wasted vote in 2020 might impact)

    (4) And, according to Dunne, all this is dependent on the further assumption that "Labour was to hold all of its current 46 seats" in the first place. (Can you see here how he seems to view these seats as Geographical Constituencies ? … it "holds on" to "all of its current 46 seats" & then has to win a bare "minimum of 15" more. This is a very strange misunderstanding of MMP).

    (5) In contrast, 2020 is apparently a much more attractive scenario for the Nats. Assuming the Party "were to hold all its current seats, and regain Botany …", Dunne argues, "it would need to win just four of the nine current New Zealand First/Greens seats to be able to form a government" (But Peter, aren't there 17 seats currently held by the Junior Coalition Partners, rather than 9 ??? … and, more importantly, we're seeing precisely the same bizarre idea that a major party "holds on" to its current seats (as if they're all geographical constituencies won by local MPs) … & then has to win a further group of specific seats that had previously been "allocated" to New Zealand First/Greens).

    (6)  "Even if the Greens survived", says Dunne, "and just New Zealand First fell out, National would be in the stronger position of the two main parties to lead the next government." The Nats would need to win just 4 of the 9 seats "currently allocated" to Winston, whereas Labour's task would be "very difficult", needing to pick up "most of the previously allocated New Zealand First seats and then hope the Greens scored at least their number in the present Parliament to have a chance of carrying on in government." (once again, precisely zero explanation offered for Why it's such a "very difficult" goal for Labour … and again Dunne's remarkably odd idea of a very distinct, very specific, almost autonomous, almost geographical little collection of seats being "allocated" to Winston in 2017 and now, under this hypothetical 2020 scenario, apparently up for grabs & absolutely crucial for victory)

     

    I mean What the Flying … ???

    It's actually remarkably simple, Peter. You're having enormous trouble distinguishing the Wood from the Trees. Everything comes down to the comparative Party Vote % which, in turn, of course, determines overall Seat numbers. That's all you need to worry about.

    If the Ardern Govt Bloc or (as Dunne insists) just Lab+Green (with NZF out) receive a higher proportion of the Party Vote than Nat+ACT … then a Labour-led Government is returned.  Plain & simple. No supposedly insurmountable hurdle for Labour, no having to win an impossible majority of some mythical little collection of make-or-break seats (each apparently with their own idiosyncratic name, personality & backstory) specifically "allocated" to Winston in the current Parliament but now up for grabs in 2020.

    Instead, Peter, you need to clear your mind and see each Election as a Blank Slate. Let me repeat that: a Blank Slate.

    If, for instance, Winston failed to make the threshold in 2020 (as you're assuming), and Labour + Greens received say 52% to Nat + ACT's 43% … then a Lab-led Govt will not only be returned but actually with a greater share of seats than those currently held by the entire Govt Bloc to boot !. Simple as that. No former Winston seats to be "reallocated", no Everest to climb, no Gobi Desert to traverse, no Atlantic Ocean to cross, no Mission Nigh Impossible Do or Die scenario for Labour or any such bizarre, meaningless nonsense.

    If you'd said something cogent like I don't think it's likely that Labour & the Greens together can generate enough Party Vote support at the next General Election to win more than 60 seats … then at least you're making a potentially plausible argument. But instead, you've headed down this outrageously convoluted path that muddies & mystifies everything in its wake.

    So I'd suggest the wise thing to do is save a great deal of time & energy by simply having a wee gander at the most recent opinion polls to see who is currently leading in the Party Vote under various scenarios:

    Here are the scenarios (I personally think 2020 is probably going to be an (a)-type scenario, whereas you'd suggest it's more likely be (b), (d), or possibly (c)):

    (a) If all Parties currently represented in Parl are returned in 2020 (Govt Bloc vs Oppo Bloc)

    (b) If NZF fails to make threshold (L+G vs Oppo Bloc)

    (c) If Greens fail to make threshold (L+NZF vs Oppo Bloc)

    (d) If both Govt Junior Partners fail to make threshold (Lab vs Oppo Bloc)

    (e) (same as (d) but in addition … If ACT fails to make it back) (Lab vs Nat)

     

    Looking at the latest Opinion Polls:

     

    UMR (July 2019)

    (a) Govt Bloc Lead (over Oppo Bloc) close to 20 points

    (b) Lab+Green Lead (over Oppo Bloc) around 12 points

    (c) Lab+NZF Lead (over Oppo Bloc) about 10 points

    (d) Lab Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 3 points

    (e) Lab Lead (over Nats) 4 points

     

    Newshub RR (June 2019)

    (a) Govt Bloc Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 22 points

    (b) Lab+Green Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 19 points

    (c) Lab+NZF Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 16 points

    (d) Lab Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 13 points

    (e) Lab Lead (over Nats) 14 points

     

    One News CB (June 2019)

    (a) Govt Bloc Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 8 points

    (b) Lab+Green Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 3 points

    (c) Lab+NZF Lead (over Oppo Bloc) 2 points

    (d) Oppo Bloc Lead (over Lab) 3 points

    (e) Nat lead (over Lab) 2 points

     

    In both the latest UMR & Reid Research … you can see that the Ardern Government in all its possible formulations (L+G+NZF / L+G / L+NZF / Lab alone) beat both National & the Oppo Bloc as a whole (massively in the Reid Research).

    In the latest Colmar Brunton, an Ardern-led Govt would be returned in all cases unless both Junior Coalition Partners fell below the threshold. (although, even in that scenario, I suspect it'd actually prove a knife-edge result because Green & NZF deserters are more likely to head Labour's way, thus boosting its vote vis-a-vis the Oppo).

    • Sacha 18.1

      it's almost as if he believes we're still living under FPP

      Yep. That's where I got to, without all the rest. 🙂

      • swordfish 18.1.1

        I can just immediately see how tired I was … outrageously repetitive. Couldn't be arsed editing it this morn. Sad but true.

        • Sacha 18.1.1.1

          Hey I just didn't need the evidence this time to be convinced he was operating on a false premise. How that got waved through any editorial oversight process is another matter.

    • Pat 18.2

      Dunne's a lifetime politician who apparently has thrown his lot in with the opposition (yet again, hard to believe he was ever in Labour) and is contributing to the only viable strategy available to them….attempting to undermine the coalition via its various support bases.

      Nothing new and rather blatant

Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago