Herald poll has Labour at 40% because of asset sales

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 9:09 am, December 15th, 2013 - 138 comments
Categories: bill english, john key, national, polls, same old national, slippery - Tags:

It has a small sample (500 voters) and is probably overly optimistic but a poll in the morning’s Herald has Labour on 40% although National is on 48%. The Greens were said to be on 8% and no other parties were close to the 5% threshold. Participants were asked how the asset sale policy affected their vote and 37 per cent said they would be much less likely to vote for National because of it.

And meanwhile John Key was in his inventing shit up mode and justified the Green’s poster which is above. He is quoted as saying:

Three in four New Zealanders said no, we don’t agree with Labour and the Greens … I genuinely think Labour and the Greens will be very disappointed … I think it will be a dismal failure from their point of view.”

Only on planet Key could a referendum result where two thirds voted against the Government policy could be interpreted as three quarters of New Zealanders saying that they support it.

The “three in four” figure requires Crosby Textor type stretching of the truth. It implies that there are 3.6 million people on the electoral roll but there are only 3,037,405 electors. Key obviously needs help with his maths.

The day before Key called the poll a political stunt. It is galling that the Prime Minister of this country should call the exercise of a democratic choice by nearly half of eligible voters a “political stunt”.

And the sale of Genesis next year was confirmed although Bill English added the rider “subject to market conditions”. With the share prices of Mighty River Power and Meridian having declined to below their listed prices you have to wonder if the market even wants a further power company share float.

138 comments on “Herald poll has Labour at 40% because of asset sales ”

Comments are now closed

Simeon 1

15 December 2013 at 9:41 am

We like the NZ Herald today because they are not being mean to us. But the moment they are they better watch out.
- Tat Loo (CV) 1.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:05 am
  
  You do realise that you sound like a 5 year old? MS already said it was a small sample size and its probably over estimated Labour support by 1%-2%.
  
  Still massive though.
  
  The Greens won’t like the implication that all their hard work has benefitted just Labour, but I think the recent RM which showed a Green surge should make them relax.
  - Fisiani 1.1.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 3:10 pm
    
    National rise to 48%. Higher than Election 2011 and Labour get the credit for the work of the Greens. The Greens must be furious.
    - swordfish 1.1.1.1
      
      15 December 2013 at 3:29 pm
      
      @ “National rise to 48%. Higher than Election 2011”
      
      Nats up less than 1 percentage point. Labour up13 points and Left Bloc up 10 points. Right Bloc down. Not bad at all.
    - gobsmacked 1.1.1.2
      
      15 December 2013 at 3:34 pm
      
      Fisiani comments on the Standard, yesterday: “75% support National”.
      
      Fisiani comments on the Standard, today: “48% support National”.
      
      Can’t wait for tomorrow!
    - Matthew Whitehead 1.1.1.3
      
      15 December 2013 at 3:48 pm
      
      Fisiani: Doesn’t matter, the opposition is still running you to a dead heat in the polls, and the Left tends to do a bit better in the actual election than in the polls, and the government doesn’t have a popular policy to its name at the moment, and is carrying several millstones around its neck.
      
      At this point, if we don’t have a change of Government, it will most likely be because Labour screwed it up.
    - Frank Macskasy 1.1.1.4
      
      16 December 2013 at 6:45 am
      
      National rise to 48%. Higher than Election 2011 and Labour get the credit for the work of the Greens. The Greens must be furious.
      
      And once campaigning starts, Fisiani, expect National support to fall away and Opposition parties to increase support. As happened at the last election.
      
      On track for a change in government – I see no reason to change that view.
      - Matthew 1.1.1.4.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 1:58 pm
        
        This poll is simply not credible.
        
        Not only does it have huge swings it also has New Zealand First not making 1%.
        
        Does anyone seriously think New Zealand First would pll anything under 3% if an election were held tomorrow??
        
        As for election year when the economy hits 3%+ growth and there is a feel good factor all over New Zealand don’t be surprised to see a swing in favour of the government.
        
        Colonial Viper 1.1.1.4.1.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 2:09 pm
        
        Are you re-promising the 160,000 new jobs that Key and English have been promising since 2009?
        
        blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1.1.4.1.2
        
        16 December 2013 at 2:16 pm
        
        +1 Matthew
        I suspect it is an attempt to get tension between Labour and Greens. whilst looking supportive of the referendum that has just occurred.
- Lloyd 1.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 11:05 pm
  
  The National Herald ran this story on PAGE 5!!!!
  
  They kept the front page for an attack on Len Brown. They report the fact that Len wasn’t costing the ratepayers of Auckland when he checked into Hotels as ‘damming’. This was far more important to the editors than half the voters of New Zealand voted in a referendum.
  
  The Herald is a mouthpiece for the Nats. They are mean, the facts are such that they had to report what they have or the the idea of calling themselves a Newspaper would be transparently incorrect.
  - Paul 1.2.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 11:12 pm
    
    The editors are complicit in the slow removal of democracy from New Zealand.
    A disgraceful rag.
    Murphy and Roughan are mere puppets of their corporate masters.
appleboy 2

15 December 2013 at 9:45 am

Where is the journo on Monday’s press conference who will stand up and ask John Key how he can claim 1.5 million non referendum voters as pro asset sales? Then follow with – but they didn’t vote for you either in 2011?

Not only is it lies, it’s a staggering statement of how detached from reality Key is to have the gall to claim it.

I think Key no longer cares, the gloves are off and he just lies in the knowledge they he has achieved the goal – be PM and channel cash to his rich supporters.

History will show him to have been our worst PM, right beside Muldoom.
- Paul 2.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 9:48 am
  
  What Mike Hosking or Marcus Lush during their cosy chat with Key?
  NZ’s media dominated by paid puppets not journalists; repeaters of government propaganda, not repeaters.
- Rosie 2.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:32 am
  
  “I think Key no longer cares, the gloves are off and he just lies in the knowledge they he has achieved the goal – be PM and channel cash to his rich supporters.
  
  History will show him to have been our worst PM, right beside Muldoom.”
  
  Astute observation appleboy. I think he gave up caring, or at least the guise of caring along time ago. This PM gig just isn’t the ride it used to be for him. Its’ written all over his face. Now he’s just on pure BS auto pilot mode.
  
  And yeah, the above “3 in 4 voters…………….”quote was a stunner. Just about spat my dinner out watching that clip on the news last night.
- Will@Welly 2.3
  
  15 December 2013 at 12:31 pm
  
  I was never a fan of Muldoon. I hated and detested the man. But I think he realised, too late, he had f**ked up. He went to his grave early. Certainly for one who had led such a privileged life.
  Key is just waiting for his knighthood, which will open so many doors around the world for him. He’s rich, he’s wealthy, and he doesn’t give a damn.
  Muldoon was bad. But Key is worse. Muldoon was blinded by his own arrogance. Key is blinded by greed and hubris. That is worse. In many ways Muldoon was a product of his times, Key cannot claim that.
  - Paul 2.3.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 12:50 pm
    
    Key worked for Merrill Lynch, at the heart of darkness.
  - James 2.3.2
    
    17 December 2013 at 2:41 pm
    
    Hang on a minute. Much as Key is an abysmal PM, and channeling public wealth into a small number of private hands, Muldoon led the country into civil war and near-insolvency. Without Muldoon’s recklessness, Douglass would never have had the opportunity to be half so voracious.
    
    You could also argue Key is just as much a product of his time as Muldoon was, in that he is a product of the welfare state. What motivation did welfare give him to return the favour?
    
    I know, entirely contemptible.
- Draco T Bastard 2.4
  
  15 December 2013 at 1:20 pm
  
  History will show him to have been our worst PM, right beside Muldoom.
  
  I think you’re doing Muldoon a disservice there. He was authoritarian and left the nation in a fairly parlous state but I do think he actually cared about NZ – something that I don’t think John Key has a claim to as he only cares about himself and other rich pricks.
  - brokenback 2.4.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 7:41 pm
    
    Right on the money , hated the swine but I agree he that he genuinely believed his policies were in the best interests of all NZ ‘ers .
    Key? Believe’s in spin & greed , nothing else.
Nick 3

15 December 2013 at 9:50 am

This has been giving me the rage lately. Especially the reporting of the nonsense Key is spouting without any sensible analysis.

Is there a NZ equivalent of factcheck.org? Should there be?
- Matthew Whitehead 3.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 3:50 pm
  
  If someone wants to start one, I’d volunteer time. 😛
vto 4

15 December 2013 at 9:54 am

By the same maths illogic……

only 1 in 10 New Zealanders agree with John Key and selling assets to his mates.

1 in 10. 400,000 in 4,000,000

1 in 10

it aint much

in fact its a rout.

John Key should go back to being a money-trader

only 1 in 10 agree with selling assets
- felix 4.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:40 am
  
  “John Key should go back to being a money-trader”
  
  What makes you think he ever stopped?
  - Paul 4.1.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 10:42 am
    
    I’m sure his visits to LA and Hawaii have a purpose.
- Bob 4.2
  
  16 December 2013 at 9:21 am
  
  By the same illogic only 2 in 10 disagree with asset sales so we should have a $9m Non-Binding Asset Sales referendum! Any way you look at this it is bad for Labour and the Greens, 67.2% against is considerably less than the polls they quoted to push this referendum through.
  For the record, I didn’t vote in the referendum as I didn’t want to take part in a blatant waste of tax payer money for no outcome, nor did my wife, so you can add two more votes to the ‘Yes” column as we both support this (although neither of us support continuing with the Genesis float until the next term in office, the market has been flooded and the Labour/Greens rediculous, unworkable and job cutting Nationilisation policy will further kill the price, wait until the threat of them destroying the economy with mass market intervention (power, construction, insurance……what next) is behind us before proceeding further).
  - KJT 4.2.1
    
    16 December 2013 at 10:28 am
    
    Why don’t we dispense with elections as well. Cost rather a lot more than the referendum, don’t they?
    
    Or National. What percentage of the total population voted for them?
    - Bob 4.2.1.1
      
      16 December 2013 at 10:45 am
      
      Yes they do, but they are a necessary part of democracy and therefore worth every cent, frivolous politically motivated non-binding referenda are not. Surely you can see the difference.
      “Or National. What percentage of the total population voted for them?” I’m glad you brought up this point, as frequently commentators on this site push the fact that National retained power under one of the lowest voter turnouts ever, yet they still received more votes than the ‘No’ vote on the referendum, so if the election meant bugger all (aparently it doesn’t give National a mandate to govern) then the referendum meant even less, again, a complete waste of tax payer money!
      - blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.2.1.1.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 11:30 am
        
        This is disingenuous Bob,
        
        The point of contention is not whether National [or any party] gains a mandate to govern via a general election – no one is arguing that point – the argument is about National’s assertion that they gained a mandate over one of their policies. Referendum are useful to find out public opinion over a single policy – general elections are not.
        
        National’s claim re having a mandate on asset sales has no credibility and they took this faulty stance that is in contempt of democratic principles and the public because they wanted to appear to be acting in line with the publics’ wishes – they are not and they know it.
        
        Don’t be a mug to ‘being told a big enough lie’ Bob, and stop propagating such.
        
        Bob 4.2.1.1.1.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 1:11 pm
        
        “Referendum are useful to find out public opinion over a single policy – general elections are not” this is a fair point, but referenda like this are meant to be ‘Citizens Initiated’, a major reason for this referendum going ahead was due to the Greens hiring staff out of their parliamentary budget to collect signatures, how is this citizens initiated!
        The Greens claim re this being a Citizens Initiated Referendum on asset sales has no credibility and they took this faulty stance that is in contempt of democratic principles and the public because they wanted to appear to be acting in line with the publics’ wishes – they are not and they know it.
        Don’t be a mug and say that this referendum was anything other than an expensive political stunt.
        
        blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
        
        16 December 2013 at 1:58 pm
        
        It appears yet again you repeat the lies that we are told by our PM. What one is it Bob; wilfulness or ignorance on your behalf?
        
        The Greens assisted in the referendum but didn’t initiate it and considering the outcome of the referendum the Greens were acting in line with the publics’ wishes.
        
        I appreciate the Greens supporting this Citizens Initiated Referendum at a time where a lot of New Zealanders are despairing: have not had pay rises and struggling to manage – due to the recession and policies that have added to the problem for such people by the government.
        
        The Greens activities supported something that would have very much happened regardless. The choice they made in taking such an approach saved ordinary folk some money and might have scored them political points however saying that it is a ‘political stunt’ is the disingenuous framing of vested interests coming straight out of the Prime Puppet’s mouth who is saying so dishonestly and despite denigrating important democratic engagement by the people because it serves his own backers’ interests; which makes his incoherent ramblings a political stunt of his own. The dude will go down as an embarrassment to the political system of this country and is doing much damage to political integrity (what is left of it) and you shouldn’t be supporting such behaviour.
      - Tracey 4.2.1.1.2
        
        16 December 2013 at 11:36 am
        
        dont they have to pay down debt like they promised though, isnt that part of the alleged “mandate”? Or can they change their mind about that part?
        
        blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.2.1.1.2.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 11:53 am
        
        @ Tracey
        
        Wasn’t the promise that we would be in surplus by 2014? – which again was a big lie that people swallowed hook, line and sinker – whereas Labour was being realistic and would have managed it a few years later while still retaining the revenue of our assets.
        
        It really stinks when people keep believing wholesale lies.
        
        KJT 4.2.1.1.2.2
        
        16 December 2013 at 2:09 pm
        
        What about. “We will not raise GST/Taxes”.
        
        I seem to remember National promising something along those lines also.
        
        before taxing paper boys/girls.
Ad 5

15 December 2013 at 9:58 am

Notice also Armstrong gave Cunliffe politician of the year.

Key’s disrespect for the million+ Referendum voters counts as the single largest vote-closer for 2014.

Maybe Labour doesn’t need to be super-coherent. Maybe we really will see the National government corrode far faster than economic conditions improve. God I hope so.
- Tat Loo (CV) 5.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:13 am
  
  Although it would be nice to see Labour win the election, not just Key lose it, anything at this point is preferable.
  
  The word to describe Key’s view of the electorate: arrogant.
  - Frank Macskasy 5.1.1
    
    16 December 2013 at 6:47 am
    
    @ Tat Loo – I welcome Key’s display of naked arrogance, Let the public see the man as he really is.
- Rogue Trooper 5.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 12:27 pm
  
  and Lord forgive them when they know not what they do.
appleboy 6

15 December 2013 at 10:02 am

Adult voters are a tad over 3 million, so it’s not out of 4 million, it’s out of three I think.
- Francis 6.1
  
  16 December 2013 at 10:25 pm
  
  3,037,405 to be exact.
  
  http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/2013_citizens_referendum/
  
  (895,322/3,037,405)*100 = 29%, or about 3 in 10. Of course, that doesn’t have the same buzz to it as 1 in 4…
  
  That’s besides the fact that there’s no way you can count non-voters as anything. If someone doesn’t vote on an issue, they’re forfeiting their right to have their opinion counted.
rich the other 7

15 December 2013 at 10:16 am

The problem green/labour have is Key is correct , more people voted in the GENERAL election for Nationals policy to sell %49 of some assets, it’s the GENERAL ELECTION that counts.
In the non binding referendum National even didn’t bother to campaign while the left were hard at it.
The electoral commission were reminding people up to the last minute , have you voted yet etc etc , advertisements every where.
The referendum vote against selling needed to exceed the vote for Nationals sell policy at the last GENERAL election ,it failed.
- Paul 7.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:24 am
  
  Quite clearly more people voted in the general election. it is clear though that many of the people who voted for the National Party voted for other reasons
  I imagine quite a few are now regretting that decision.
  Sadly, far too many people in our dumbed down society vote for the most superficial reasons…e.g. personality over policy, or a catchy slogan such as ‘A brighter future.’
- James Thrace 7.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:29 am
  
  More people voted in the Referendum than voted for National in the General Election.
  
  Only some 100,000 voters less than actually voted for National said No to asset sales.
  
  So whats your point?
  - rich the other 7.2.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 11:54 am
    
    1.1 MILLION voted National in the last General election , National could also claim their coalition partners approve of selling.
    
    875000,( approx.) voted against selling in the Nonbinding ref, that’s the point.
    It’s the general election that matters .
    National didn’t even bother campaigning in the referendum.
    - Paul 7.2.1.1
      
      15 December 2013 at 11:59 am
      
      If you don’t count the fact that the corporate media ignored it.
      And the Tory puppets like Farrar and Spewoil made sure the lazy repeaters in the corporate media knew the message from their masters.
      Voting for a party does not mean people support every policy they propose…
    - Matthew Whitehead 7.2.1.2
      
      15 December 2013 at 4:03 pm
      
      Have you heard of the concept of continuous consent, rich?
      
      It’s a mainstream view of how governments receive their mandate- that they don’t just derive a moral foundation for government from the election, rather that they’re required to continually seek the consent of the public for their key policies, and that governments that lose that consent have failed, regardless of what legislation they pass or how long they can remain in power afterwards.
      
      The general election determines the composition of parliament. It doesn’t actually grant you support or a mandate to implement your policies- to do that, you have to win the debate on whether they’re good ideas. National lost the debate and went ahead anyway- which legally is okay, although it was a bad idea electorally and will cost them dearly at the coming election. The sales make no financial sense, are unpopular even with voters who are traditional National constituents, and won’t help the market. There’s no way to argue that they have the consent of the voters, as this is actually quite a strong turnout for a postal referendum.
      
      National doesn’t have any human rights foundation to stand on in keeping an unpopular law, (unlike last time we had a postal referendum) so there’s no way to say he has a moral foundation to push his laws through. He’s following the letter of the law of our democracy, sure, but this actually violates the spirit of how our government is supposed to work.
    - blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.2.1.3
      
      15 December 2013 at 6:37 pm
      
      Rich the Other
      
      I am beginning to question right wingers mathematical understanding.
      
      Claiming 1.1 Million voted for National is both incorrect and doesn’t say much when you omit to mention the other numbers involved in the general election.
      
      Correction: 1, 082, 525 voted for Act and National in the 2011 general election – less than 1.1 million.
      
      How about comparing this 1. 082, 525 with the 1,139,901 over 1.1 MILLION who voted for the many parties that were against asset sales?
      
      How about comparing the numbers that voted for Nat and Act in 2011 with those voting in support of the asset sales in this recent referendum**?
      
      >> 432, 950/1, 082, 525 = 0.40 (2dp)
      
      This means that only 4 out of 10 of the numbers of people who voted this government into power voted in support of the asset sales.
      
      Conclusion: This referendum points to a monumental failure in the government’s asset sales policy – and given the utterly bizarre and pathetic spin exuding from you all – including the PM – don’t you all know it.
      
      **based on preliminary results
    - Frank Macskasy 7.2.1.4
      
      16 December 2013 at 6:51 am
      
      Rich, you left out the Conservative Party vote which was HIGHER than the Act Party’s. Chart here; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/mandates-majorities/
      
      If you take the pro-Sale bloc vs the anti-Sale bloc, the latter had the higher voter support.
    - Molly 7.2.1.5
      
      16 December 2013 at 8:10 am
      
      Your 1.1 million translates to 47% of the total vote. Hardly a majority in any numerical system.
      
      If you add the morally inept and non-asset sale promoting UF and Act parties voting %, you still only get up to 48.61%. Once again – not a majority. The Maori party indicated that they were against asset sales during the election.
      
      Now – are we clear? – at no stage in a formal process – either during a General Election OR the recent referendum has the NZ public given a majority support for Asset Sales.
      - Tracey 7.2.1.5.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 8:21 am
        
        and definitely not the “landslide” Mr Key now calls it.
        
        an overwhelming majority of votes for one party or candidate in an election.
        “they won by a landslide”
        
        synonyms for overwhelming
        
        vast, huge, massive, enormous, tremendous, immense, very large, astronomic, humongous or humungous,
        
        Colonial Viper 7.2.1.5.1.1
        
        16 December 2013 at 8:23 am
        
        All alone on Planet Key.
        
        Tracey …
        
        16 December 2013 at 8:31 am
        
        the more I read and listen to Key’s supporters the more I realise that education doesn’t really equate to intellectual literacy
    - Tracey 7.2.1.6
      
      16 December 2013 at 8:16 am
      
      well they kind of did, they campaigned to discourage people from voting.
- Will@Welly 7.3
  
  15 December 2013 at 3:28 pm
  
  Yes, “rich the other” the opposition got suckered in by National declaring the date of the election early, and thinking that they had the whole year to debate the topics. National played the wild card by coming out and saying that they’d happily debate things, but only after the Rugby World Cup. This left just 5 weeks for any real politicking, which was infact reduced to three, due to the post-Cup week celebrations, and then the final week when National didn’t want to engage. Also remember the number of “missing” National M.P.’s around the hustling’s – National didn’t want to be embarrassed.
  And ask yourself this question – how much serious discussion was there about asset sales by National – very little. It was not their main plank in their manifesto – they downplayed that as much as possible, always citing mums and dads.
  Expect similar tactics from National this year. They don’t like the truth, just spin, lies and B.S.
  - Paul 7.3.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 3:53 pm
    
    All I remember are posters of John Key and the slogan ‘ a brighter future.’
- Matthew Whitehead 7.4
  
  15 December 2013 at 3:56 pm
  
  People don’t vote on just one policy in the general election. Hell, the majority of voters don’t vote based directly on policy at all.
  
  And while it would have been a very clear message if the no vote had exceeded the National Party message, the idea that it failed is unreasonable. You might not be convinced, but I don’t even know if you were the intended audience for the referendum.
  
  What it has made clear is that the claim that the general election was a mandate for asset sales is a complete fabrication, and that a LOT of government supporters oppose this policy. It’s a financial failure, it’s going to make our electricity market worse, not better, and it’s incredibly unpopular. It’s not fun to see our government shoot itself in the foot like that, even if I would prefer a different government. They should grow up and ditch their failed asset sales policy. Hell, if they cared about the performance of the companies at all, they’d re-nationalise them and come up with a different solution. Not that I expect this government to try and solve any problems. =/
  - Paul 7.4.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 4:03 pm
    
    The National Party’s campaign was ‘trust us, John Key’s our leader.’
    Policy was there but always minimised while the personality of Key highlighted.
    The tactic was to avoid debating issues.
    It worked, thanks to a compliant media and a dumbed down populace that believed the personality cult built up deliberately by a slick PR machine during Key’s first term.
    - rich the other 7.4.1.1
      
      15 December 2013 at 6:51 pm
      
      Paul ,
      labours main policy in the last general election was STOP ASSETT SALES , labour declared it was THE MAJOR issue, they got hammered.
      
      National didn’t even bother to campaign in the referendum .
      - Colonial Viper 7.4.1.1.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 7:03 pm
        
        Did you notice how big National voting electorates like Waitaki and Clutha Southland totally smashed the asset sales programme on Friday?
      - blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.4.1.1.2
        
        15 December 2013 at 7:04 pm
        
        @ Rich the Other
        All we have to go by, Rich, is that only 4 out of the 10 people who voted this government in voted in support of the asset sales in the referendum.
        
        You can prevaricate all you like about National not campaigning* in the referendum – [*actually Key did appear to campaign – giving very conflicting messages as he went: that it was a waste of time, not to vote, predicting the results would come out against asset sales and if this were so that the Opposition need to buy them back when they get into government] – however despite all this – all we can conclude is that only 432 950 people felt strongly enough to vote in support of the asset sales.
        
        I suggest that John Key has made the following note to himself: **Learn about the advantages democratic principles and of encouraging democratic engagement.**
        
        blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.4.1.1.2.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 7:17 pm
        
        p.s A note for potential National voters: don’t listen to John Key – he won’t listen to you.
      - Matthew Whitehead 7.4.1.1.3
        
        15 December 2013 at 9:04 pm
        
        Rich,
        
        Yes, Labour failed to win the previous campaign, when their side of it was about asset sales. However, have you stopped to consider that this doesn’t really imply how the public felt about the issue itself? A lot of people might have felt that their campaign was negative, that they weren’t ready to be the Government, and the party structure was weak- it had a very unpopular leader, (as opposed to the current one, who simply isn’t catching up) and frankly a lot of people wanted John Key as Prime Minister, regardless of how they felt about his team or his policy.
        
        Also, there really hasn’t been an attempt to justify or explain the mixed ownership model to the public- the only analysis of asset sales we get is from the Left. John Key hasn’t really sold the country on the idea, it’s simply that he’s failed to lose the election on other grounds.
      - blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.4.1.1.4
        
        16 December 2013 at 10:40 am
        
        @ Rich the Other
        
        It is a bit sad banging on about the general election where more people voted for parties against asset sales when a referendum just occurred that like every other poll on the matter comes out and shows that there is very little support for selling off assets.
        
        How many times does someone have to be told before they get a simple fact?
    - KJT 7.4.1.2
      
      16 December 2013 at 2:12 pm
      
      I think most vote for who they think is the, least, incompetent, at the time.
- Frank Macskasy 7.5
  
  16 December 2013 at 7:01 am
  
  Rich, the problem you have is that Key referred to the OVERALL votes cast in the Referendum, not just the “NO” votes,
  
  “Well the numbers don’t look like they’re that significant. I mean at the moment it’s sitting at around about 40 per cent.“
  
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9515170/PM-playing-down-voter-turnout
  
  Other posters are correct; more people returned a ballot than voted for National,
  
  National voters (2011): 1,058,638
  
  Referendum ballots: 1,297,281
  
  At the very least, there is no way in high heaven that any National candidate will ever be able to claim that Nation “listens” to people’s concerns. They obviously don’t, and only elections count, nothing else.
- framu 7.6
  
  16 December 2013 at 12:53 pm
  
  “The electoral commission were reminding people up to the last minute , have you voted yet etc etc , advertisements every where.”
  
  yeah – thats their job
  
  its weird though – you lot were shouting down any notion of turnout and those that didnt vote at the election, and now it seems the be all and end all of what counts
  - blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.6.1
    
    16 December 2013 at 1:15 pm
    
    Yes Rich’s ““The electoral commission were reminding people up to the last minute , have you voted yet etc etc , advertisements every where.” doesn’t support his argument at all – they were reminding all voters to vote ….and just look how few turned out in support of the asset sales!
sweetd 8

15 December 2013 at 10:22 am

So, the Nats stay pretty much where they have been for the last five years and labour eats the greens.
- Paul 8.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:24 am
  
  Wait for a proper poll. It’s happening in 2014.
  The only interesting thing is the number of polls happening; this suggests powerful corporate interests are getting nervous and are regularly checking the pulse.
  - Colonial Viper 8.1.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 10:44 am
    
    Corporate and party interests do private polling which is not published.
    
    I reckon the increase in publicly released polling at the moment is due to MSM interest going into an election year.
    - Paul 8.1.1.1
      
      15 December 2013 at 10:46 am
      
      So you don’t think an extra poll by the Herald wasn’t suggested by the puppet masters of the Herald.
      “Good evening Mr Roughan, we’d really appreciate it if ….”
      - Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 10:53 am
        
        I think they’re interested in the build up to an election year, also I think they are pissed off with how Key has been treating journalists and the media.
        
        Paul 8.1.1.1.1.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 10:55 am
        
        The Herald is Key’s mouthpiece.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        15 December 2013 at 11:01 am
        
        Although the Herald does generally serve the power elite, I also think that interests, relationships and factions are often more subtle than that. You think Key wanted a poll putting Labour at 40% because of the asset sales referendum?
        
        Paul …
        
        15 December 2013 at 11:05 am
        
        1. No but they wouldn’t but the poll gives them clues as to how the worm is turning and helps them strategise further.
        2. Not sure either that Key would complain about a poll that sees Labour taking the Greens’ votes. The Greens represent a more serious challenge to the neoliberal consensus than the Labour Party.
        
        Matthew Whitehead …
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:06 pm
        
        Granted, but if the herald was a straightforward patsy to the government they wouldn’t post an article like that. No, they will retaliate if they’re pushed, and if course, if they can’t spin a story, they’ll run it as-is if it’s going to pull audience numbers. The herald’s a right-wing paper, but its editors do still try to sell their news.
        
        Arfamo …
        
        15 December 2013 at 11:02 am
        
        Nearly right. Wrong end.
        
        Rogue Trooper …
        
        15 December 2013 at 12:28 pm
        
        🙂
        
        Natwest …
        
        16 December 2013 at 9:07 am
        
        Joke of the year.
bad12 9

15 December 2013 at 10:23 am

That ‘poll’ looks like one of those you look at, shrug the shoulders and then ignore, the only agreement i would have with such ‘poll’ of small numbers irregularly taken is that it is very likely to be a close election,

i suspect what happens with the small parties will decide the next Government…
- Matthew Whitehead 9.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 4:07 pm
  
  What we can look at is the trend compared to other polls, which doesn’t look good for Mr. Key’s government at this stage. He could still pull up a government for next term, but he’d have to rely on Labour and the Greens making some mistakes to do so, given how little he has to offer the electorate right now.
- Frank Macskasy 9.2
  
  16 December 2013 at 7:03 am
  
  Bad12 – fair point. It will be interesting to see what the next Roy Morgan poll comes up with.
  - bad12 9.2.1
    
    16 December 2013 at 7:19 am
    
    Frank, true, although i suspect Roy at times in that there are the odd ‘strange’ surge one way or the other in the Morgan that doesn’t seem to have had a basis in the ‘political reality’ of what’s actually occurred here within the polling period at least the Morgan is an on-going monologue as far as the ‘numbers’ go…
Bill 10

15 December 2013 at 10:41 am

When John Key says he’ll ignore the result and yet again pins the b/s anti-smacking referendum debacle on labour and the greens and, importantly, presents an opportunity for Craig to announce that any referendum with a 2/3rds buy in should be binding…implication = Key keeps Craig’s craziness in check and Craig keeps Key’s excesses in check. Voted National? You can vote Conservative if asset sales are a bugbear.
Rogue Trooper 11

15 December 2013 at 10:59 am

like planting, surprising where some seeds take.
Tracey 12

15 December 2013 at 11:28 am

Given craig wants s 59a repealled and key blames labour for not passing the wishes of tge cir ref in 2009 has the media asked key if he will repeal the section and revert to old s59??
- Puddleglum 12.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 12:01 pm
  
  Also, presumably John Key would apply his mathematical logic to the S59 referendum and declare, similarly, that a majority of electors opposed repeal?
- Rodel 12.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 11:53 pm
  
  Hooray! Someone who does not use the right wing religious nutters cliche, ‘anti smacking’ but uses the ’59a’ term. Most of the above wouldn’t know what 59a means.
  - Tracey 12.2.1
    
    16 December 2013 at 7:41 am
    
    which is why *I* dismiss the referendum result and applaud national and labour for voting it through because most of the people who voted probably had no idea what s59a was.
    - Rodel 12.2.1.1
      
      16 December 2013 at 8:09 am
      
      precisely
Plan B 13

15 December 2013 at 11:38 am

DC is much taller than JK. JK will be hoping that he never has to stand next to him ever again, It sounds silly but it could easily be enough to swing the election. DC needs every opportunity to stand next to JK on camera. JK ends up looking like a pasty school boy.
- MrSmith 13.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 11:13 pm
  
  As trivial as that sounds Plan B in the current media environment your dead right, the song “Don’t want no short people around me” springs to mind, (maybe the new Labour theme song) trouble is the shorter they get the nastier …….
- Murray Olsen 13.2
  
  16 December 2013 at 12:10 am
  
  We need tall woman lefties to stand next to Key as much as possible, and get their photos taken. Silly, I know, but that sort of thing does resonate with many voters.
tricledrown 14

15 December 2013 at 11:44 am

Key and the right know the xmas holidays switch everybody off politics for five to 6 weeks.
They will start the new year with little or no baggage.
Trying to clear the decks before xmas with a few cheap bribes.
Paula bene bashers bribe to foster parents.
Pike river bribe.
Pike River
Dotcom
Jobless recovery
Inflation
Keys continual lying
All will be minimised .
National are in real trouble.
The assets sales slush fund will be used to sucker Enough middle class swing voters.
Key will be sucking up to Winston all year.
BrucetheMoose 15

15 December 2013 at 12:36 pm

In time the Minister for Spying ‘n’ Lying and his government will be seen as one big stunt. If you apply Key’s arrogant logic on numbers of voters turning out, then he and his government shouldn’t have been elected last time.
Old Tony 16

15 December 2013 at 3:30 pm

We voted a man in who said his Government was going to sell assets. He is selling assets. That is integrity and that is called keeping your word. It is also by definition not arrogant because the idea has been submitted to the will of the people.

A better definition of arrogance is a Party(s) which ignores the Government’s electoral mandate to sell assets, deliberately sabotages the process, and then references a secondary referendum as somehow legitimising its approach.
- Paul 16.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 3:56 pm
  
  Old but not wise.
  You don’t obviously remember what happened to the country the last time assets were sold in the 1984-1993.
- Colonial Viper 16.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 3:57 pm
  
  So John Key promising to do the wrong thing, and then actually going ahead to do the wrong thing, even after people have spoken up yet again to say it is the wrong thing, and that it is something harmful to the future of the nation is what you now call “INTEGRITY”?
  
  I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
  - Paul 16.2.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 4:08 pm
    
    Selling the people’s assets to foreign corporations sounds like treachery.
    Saying that it was for Mums and Dads was duplicitous.
    Refusing an open discussion with the people was spineless.
    
    And yet you claim this government has integrity!
  - Old Tony 16.2.2
    
    15 December 2013 at 4:20 pm
    
    So now we get down to it. The issue has nothing to do with the will of the people or the electoral process. It has to do with the fact that because you are of the Left you are always right in your own eyes. Therefore just as in the 1980s (when of course you were proved with hindsight to be “wrong”), you claim the right to impose your will on others. But you dress it up using the language of democracy. Shall we discuss integrity a little more……
    - Colonial Viper 16.2.2.1
      
      15 December 2013 at 4:27 pm
      
      So sticking with a promise to flog off Government assets earning well over 15% p.a. in order to avoid Government debt costing less than 4% p.a. is to you “INTEGRITY”?
      
      Again, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
      - Paul 16.2.2.1.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:36 pm
        
        Maybe to help you answer cv’s question you could explain why you think selling NZ’s assets is a good idea? It seems like you do from the points you make.
        
        Old Tony 16.2.2.1.1.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:47 pm
        
        OK, serious face now. Lets discuss things in a bit more detail. I do remember the 80s really well. I remember thinking and discussing endlessly the issue of whether a government ever has the right to overrule the will of the people just because they are bright people and “know” they know best. Despite the fact that I get frustrated by the views many of the populace hold, I concluded that democracy is so important that what the people want must be considered right even if objectively we feel it is wrong. So much (but not all) of the reform of the 80s was necessary but the government of the day needed to slow down and take others with them. If they didn’t, they were wrong in what they proposed.
        
        So now when I look at the clear and transparent way in which the Key government told us what it was going to do (no tricks, no lies, no fudging) I conclude that unequivocally they have a mandate to do it. Not only that, but they are “right” to do so. The rightness comes from the democratic process, not necessarily from an objective analysis.
        
        Are there limits to this? Of course there are. A policy to kill all blue-eyed babies must be wrong even if all the rest vote for it. But by and large around the middle, I believe electoral mandate must trump objective analysis in determining what is right and what is wrong.
        
        Paul …
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:51 pm
        
        Selling the country to foreign economic interests comes pretty close to treason in my books.
        
        Old Tony …
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:56 pm
        
        By which no doubt you mean its akin to killing blue-eyed babies and therefore makes it a candidate for over-riding electoral mandate? Not really. I actually prefer us to own our own stuff, but the policy does not mean the end of western civilisation.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        15 December 2013 at 7:07 pm
        
        What electoral mandate? Something like 68 out of 70 electorates in the country just voted against asset sales.
        
        Arfamo …
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:54 pm
        
        Well, Tony, more and more people are being impoverished and marginalised by this government’s policies, while those at the wealthy end of the economic scale are becoming richer. The next election may see a change to this situation and I certainly hope so, and I am pleased to see that we can look forward to your full support for a new government and major changes in economic and employment direction and policies if that does happen.
        
        Old Tony …
        
        15 December 2013 at 4:57 pm
        
        Yep. No doubt through gritted teeth at times, but by and large yes.
    - Paul 16.2.2.2
      
      15 December 2013 at 4:31 pm
      
      I would not say that the policies of the 4th Labour government were those of the left. Indeed the inner cabal that run that government was more like an ACT government. They betrayed the people of New Zealand who expected a government to protect workers rights, keep NZ assets in New Zealand and represent them not big business.
      Too late, people realised the silent coup d’état that had occurred.
      
      So I’m with you on the events of the 80s. I just don’t believe that the Labour Party has represented ‘left’ ideas for a while. And until the Labour Party sheds those traitors, then they are merely a lighter version of the present neoliberal consensus.
      
      Personally, I wouldn’t go with label like left to describe myself. I believe the world needs a better system than neoliberal capitalism if we are to respect all people and the environment. Presently I vote Green, yet my vote is not set in stone.
      
      Our present system is not working for the vast majority of people and the earth and it needs to be changed.
      - Tracey 16.2.2.2.1
        
        15 December 2013 at 5:11 pm
        
        the fourth labour government betrayed it’s base and set the working class back a long way, making it seem “ok” for the right to carry on in the same vein. How old are all those people now from back then that are still waiting for the trickle down followed by their belt tightening before better times (ruth richardson’s lie).
BR 17

15 December 2013 at 3:42 pm

A comparison with the anti smacking referendum should put this issue into some perspective.

The precedent for ignoring the results of referendums was set by the last Labour/Green government.

The 2007 referendum, with a turnout of 56%, showed that 87.4% of participants were opposed to Bradford’s bill. The politicians disregarded the results and repealed S59 anyway. There was much criticism and claims of ambiguity around the wording on the referendum from the left of politics, which was then used as justification for it’s being ignored.

The current referendum shows that two thirds of the 44% of the population that voted, voted no to selling 49% of the state owned assets. That is a less decisive outcome than the result of the anti smacking referendum.

The latest referendum asked whether one supports the sale of 49% of some state owned assets. I personally do not believe that the state should control these assets and therefore I do not support 49% of the assets being sold because I don’t believe it is enough. I want them 100% sold. The left typically disagrees and wants politicians and bureaucrats to control them in their entirety.

There is therefore enough ambiguity in the wording of the question to provide an excuse for ignoring the results, just as the anti smacking referendum was ignored by the Labour/Green government at the time. However the government does not need an excuse. They ran on it and promised it before the election, unlike the last government that has Helen Clark on record as saying, before the 2005 election, that reasonable physical chastisement of children would not be outlawed.

Bill.
- gobsmacked 17.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 3:52 pm
  
  Bill
  
  The “smacking” referendum took place in 2009. John Key was the Prime Minister who ignored it.
  
  If you don’t know that basic, recent fact, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously.
  - gobsmacked 17.1.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 4:10 pm
    
    You probably won’t be back, BR, but anyway, here are some more facts for you …
    
    Key was dismissive of the smacking referendum. He called it the “Dr Seuss” referendum. He said the question was “weird”. He claimed that yes means no and no means yes. You (Bill and Tony) might call that “arrogant”, or perhaps you just prefer to pretend it never happened. You are either lying to yourselves, or to us.
    
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2733264/PM-warned-over-smacking-referendum
    
    Later there was a private member’s bill from ACT MP John Boscawen, proposing to – in essence – scrap the Bradford bill, and return to the status quo ante. The referendum organisers supported this bill.
    
    Every National MP voted against.
    - KJT 17.1.1.1
      
      16 December 2013 at 10:40 am
      
      The referendum was not ignored, in fact. There were changes to some of the less satisfactory parts of the bill.
      
      It was changed so that you could use physical force to prevent a child from harming themselves and others or to prevent them doing something which was otherwise illegal. The only circumstances which I would want to use physical force on a child anyway!
      
      Despite the fact that it still left too much to police discretion and some of the wording was still ambiguous we got a much better piece of legislation. And much more workable than Sue Bradford’s, original, “anti-smacking bill”, and closer to the rules about using physical force on adults, where there are similar rules about the reasonable use of physical force.
      The bill as originally worded, would have made it a potential criminal offense to stop a child harming themselves.
      
      Of course it did not stop Nationals mates from running away with our wealth so National had no problem with it.
      
      Saying that 80% of those who voted against the bill were “child bashers” or misinformed is just as arrogant as Key’s giant “fuck you” to New Zealanders over this referendum.
      It was depressing to note the arrogant contempt for democracy from so many on what I regarded as “the left”.
- Tracey 17.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 5:15 pm
  
  Bill
  
  If you actually believe any of what you wrote is true and have been passing it off to others as fact, you should hang your head in shame. Your leader has had 5 years to put forward a bill to repeal the change. he hasnt… well not yet…. he might if it means Mr Craig can help him be puppetmaster again, afterall Key is the “say anything/do anything to make the mugs vote for me again” master of NZ.
  
  ” that reasonable physical chastisement of children would not be outlawed.” Can you point to how many parents have been criminialised by the change in legislation. You only need to search back to mid 2009, not 2007 as you have mythically suggested. Sorry if your head explodes at the revelation of actual facts.
Simon Buckingham 18

15 December 2013 at 4:13 pm

My view is simple in this…..

I am really happy, but I have seen polls wildly out before. They are a good indicator, but they do not tell you how people will vote. They tell you what people want to tell you at this moment in time. Some people lie. Some people say what they think the pollsters want to hear. Some simply do not know but are unwilling to admit this. Whilst they tend to be pretty good, we cannot assume that they show the true picture.

I therefore suggest that we give ourselves a huge pat on the back, tell ourselves how well we are doing (and I passionately believe that we are doing very well) and then assume that we are still on 30.5%, and get out there to persuade people that Labour is their best option. If we assume that we are lower in the polls, then we will not be dissapointed, and are then going in not to beat National, but to win Government. After all, if we aim for a 15% increase in our vote on 30%, we are in coalition with our Green friends. If we are on 40% and win 15%, then we are a majority by ourselves.
infused 19

15 December 2013 at 7:30 pm

This sounds like a pretty fucked poll.

1) I doubt the Greens could fall that much, as much as I’d like it.
2) No way Labour would jump 7%
Fisiani 20

15 December 2013 at 9:52 pm

The smart money is on Ipredict and the chance of Labour winning is sliding every week.
- Arfamo 20.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 9:53 pm
  
  How so? It hasn’t been around long enough to have established any kind of reliable track record for general elections. The money’s hardly smart. You’re calling it way too early.
  - Fisiani 20.1.1
    
    15 December 2013 at 10:32 pm
    
    No wrong predictions election 2011 seems smart enough
    - Arfamo 20.1.1.1
      
      15 December 2013 at 10:33 pm
      
      That’s only because you’re not very clever. You probably think knowing how to tie shoelaces is smart. Ipredict is basically chicken entrails, just a bit more upmarket.
    - ScottGN 20.1.1.2
      
      15 December 2013 at 10:37 pm
      
      Roy Morgan’s predictions were pretty much on the money in 2011 too Fisiani. You want to back their current outcomes?
  - lprent 20.1.2
    
    16 December 2013 at 12:17 am
    
    Definitely not smart and way too small a market for any particular credibility. A thousand dollars and you can make that market read whatever you want for a week.
- ScottGN 20.2
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:33 pm
  
  That’s bollocks and you know it. Labour and National to form a government have been pretty much even for the last couple of months or so on iPredict. The tide is going out on National. Even Tracey Watkins can’t escape it.
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/9488427/Where-are-the-right-wing-alternatives
- bad12 20.3
  
  16 December 2013 at 7:37 am
  
  Fisiani, if the smart money is on Ipredict as you say then Slippery’s Government is in deep shit and have just sold off the best part of the paddle,(the big bit on the bottom),
  
  What you should do is ‘read’ the whole fucking thing lest you start emulating your Leader making statements of intellect which have all the depth of an average cow shit let loose by ‘Daisy’ in any paddock on any day.
  
  To hold up IPredict as an exemplar of the current political trend you cannot just look at the one measurement ”There will be a National Government” or ”there will be a Labour Government” and run among the crowd claiming victory,
  
  Given your ‘belief’ in such a statement from IPredict you have to ‘see’ the ‘fact’ that IPredict has the National vote at a mere 40% and at the risk of being pointed out as some form of total ‘fuck-wit’ describe for the Standard readers how this 40% can possibly translate into a viable Government,
  
  If you cannot attain a ‘high standard’ of description in how this 40% can possibly translate into a Government then i am afraid the only point you will have provided to the readers is that the ‘risk’ described above is in fact realized 100% and therefor you have reached that form,
  
  Of being a total ‘fuck-wit’ that is…
Naki Man 21

15 December 2013 at 10:46 pm

Some National voters probably don’t like the partial asset sales, but they will do anything to keep
the Green Taliban away from the purse strings.
- ScottGN 21.1
  
  15 December 2013 at 10:54 pm
  
  It’s not those voters you have to worry about Naki Man, it’s women voters who apparently are walking away from National. Just like in 1999 when Clark won office. Why do you think that Bill English has had an about-face on the Paid Parental leave Bill?
- Paul 21.2
  
  16 December 2013 at 5:15 am
  
  Green Taleban
  zzzzzzzzzz
Lloyd 22

15 December 2013 at 11:26 pm

The problem with the Greens is they are rational. Compare that with the flakes that have been in ACT and NZ First, and the zombies in the Nats.
- Paul 22.1
  
  16 December 2013 at 5:16 am
  
  The Nats are terrified of the Greens, hence all the puerile name calling.
  - Tracey 22.1.1
    
    16 December 2013 at 5:46 am
    
    +1
    
    The Nats and ACT struggle with the Greens because the greens come from a humanity perspective. The NACTs dont get anything that doesn’t begin and end with a profit-based bottom-line. Run rabbits run.
Riccardo 23

16 December 2013 at 3:14 am

So using key’s logic we can say about the last 2011 General Election;

“Three in four (76.9%) New Zealanders said no, we don’t want National in government … I genuinely think National will be very disappointed … I think it will be a dismal failure from their point of view.”

Based on calculations of;
2,200,000 votes cast
47.3% of the party vote to natz
4,500,000 population
[or 3,070,847 registered voters, if one wants to be generous]

= 2,200,000 x .473 / 4,500,000
= 23.124% of NZers voted for the natz in 2011

= 76.87556% of New Zealanders DIDN’T vote for the natz or key in Election 2011 !
Natwest 24

16 December 2013 at 9:26 am

EH!

I can’t believe the “crap” being spun here – unbelievable.

Riccardo – 30% of New Zealanders said “NO” to Asset Sales and 70 % either said “YES” or we don’t care.

So conclusion, the Citizens Initiated Referedum was a complete “flop” and a waste of $9m in tax payers funds.

As for the Herald Poll – if you believe those results – you must believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Labour/Greens, be very worried – the Nats might just give you a bloody good spanking next year.

The economy is booming – confidence is up everywhere, why then would the average punter change the Government – particularly when Labour/Greens have no viable economic platform.

Apart of course from throwing money hither, thither to satisy the disinfranchised.
- blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 24.1
  
  16 December 2013 at 11:42 am
  
  It is you spinning crap Natwest with your false indignation.
  
  The referendum was seeking to find out how high the support was for the asset sales
  
  Natwest – 14% of eligible voters said “YES” to Asset Sales 86% said “NO” or didn’t support the programme enough to tick a box and send it in.
  
  That is only 4 out of 10 of the numbers who voted in this government support the asset sales programme.
  
  So conclusion, the Asset Sales was a monumental “flop” and an unsupported waste of millions of dollars in tax payers funds and revenue.
- framu 24.2
  
  16 December 2013 at 12:57 pm
  
  so out of those that cared enough to vote – those that favour asset sales didnt get enough to cross the line – in fact the did really badly
  
  lumping in the non votes was a dumb argument last election and its a dumb argument now
Craig Y 25

16 December 2013 at 10:09 am

Ah, so let me get this straight. The Nats are whingeing about the proposed cost of asset repurchases under a Labour/Green coalition. But for some reason, they will be able to find the money for endless other binding citizens referenda to pander to their militant fundamentalist Conservative coalition partner? Something doesn’t add up strategically here, je pense…
Tracey 26

16 December 2013 at 11:57 am

Last week, Cunliffe said Labour “reserved the right” to buy back the assets, but this morning said the party “probably will”.

“Let me say very clearly what our principles are. Firstly, we will not be privatising any state-owned assets. We believe in state ownership.

“Second is sure, we would like to buy some of those back and we probably will, just like we bought back Air New Zealand and we bought back TranzRail.”

But he said he would not write a cheque he could not cash, without knowing what the state of the Government books were like.
burt 27

17 December 2013 at 11:16 pm

Rogue poll !