- Date published:
10:27 pm, September 13th, 2013 - 223 comments
Categories: labour, national - Tags:
I’m not usually one to comment on individual polls as I can’t see that a single poll means much. Given that each of our media outlets only seeks to poll once every blue moon, their data isn’t great. In fact the only poll that is frequent enough to get useful information is the one not sponsored by any of our media – the Roy Morgan.
Fresh from being the most accurate at the Aussie election (as they frequently are here too), they’ve got their latest NZ poll out.
About 3 polls ago there was a rogue one, where National sky-rocketed, Labour & Greens sank, and woe was betide. But one poll should not a story make. Grab a pinch of salt with every one.
Since then we’ve well and truly returned to trend. National are declining – now down to 41%. Labour (slowly!) increasing – now up to 32.5%. Greens have been largely flat, but up quite a bit over the last 3 polls – 15%. Yes that’s right 47.5% to 41%. Leading to Morgan’s conclusion:
If a National Election were held now the latest NZ Roy Morgan Poll shows that a Labour/ Greens alliance would win easily.
A leaderless Labour with Greens help would apparently defeat John Key.
On top of that undecideds are up to 6% – a high. It’s quite likely that a lot of undecideds are people who voted National who are now unhappy with the government, but can’t quite go as far as voting for someone else – yet. NZ First are at 6.5%, so may yet have a significant part to play.
So Cunliffe or Robertson – whoever wins – they’ll be starting from a good spot.
A very cheering result. L/Gr would 58 seats, assuming all the minors get at least one seat. 59 if the maori party disappears, along with Peter Dunne. I assume Epsom voters will do as they’re told. National have 50.
That still leaves Winston (8 seats) in the box seat, but 1-2% more to the left takes NZF out of the equation.
Dont forget Hone in the equation 🙂
Good times indeed 🙂
Yeah, even if Labour can’t govern outright with the Greens, they can still flex between policies that both the Greens and Mana can vote for, or policies that both the Greens and New Zealand First can vote for. That’s not too bad, assuming the poll that counts is at least this good.
I think a drover’s dog could win this election for the left/greens, so Shearer may even have made it. But with big DC there it’s a shoe-in. As someone told me in the local shop the other day “it has taken Key half the time to become as unpopular as Helen”.
This kind of thinking is extremely unhelpful. The NATs want a 3rd term. They have the MSM and a lot of money on their side. They’ve already announced 1700 public sector jobs for Christchurch. Once the Labour leader is announced they are going to push back at the left all guns firing.
The line against Cunliffe will be that he is divisive, disliked and egocentric.
The line against Robertson will be that he is inexperienced, unsupported by his own membership, and has no economic credibility.
It’s going to be a year long shit fight. Gear up mate.
I know Shonkey and his evil spinners will give it their all. But for me a gut feeling has developed over the last few months-this is now a tired looking and much less popular government. The RMA revolt is a symptom. DC is good. I’m confident, even if we have to parley with Winnie, who won’t have a bar of Key.
Quite right CV. They’re determined and cunning, they’ll do what it takes to retain power.
I know they’re only sideshows, but I expect to be amused by both Hoots’ paranoid spin (it’ll probably involve a lot of dog whistling about the Brown Peril) and Mike “I agree with Matthew” Williams’ increasingly bizarre statements in the coming months…. and McF saying, “They’re not supposed to win this way, they were on a steady course with Shearer.”
It’s going to be a year long shit fight. Gear up mate.
Oh yeah, for sure, and I expect some of the ABC Club to be shit stirring too, putting their own vanity ahead of a Labour Victory. Of course Mallard and Jones making dicks of themselves is sure as sunrise.
you’re making shit up again. Still haven’t bought a dictionary, I guess.
Quoting thine own righteous self on this very topic: shearer was pretty much on track for that.
So I made that up? … but you are partly right – it is shit.
Such big shiny buttons, I can’t resist pushing them.
and apparently I’m the stalker.
Oh and the bit you made up was “They’re not supposed to win this way”.
So how do you like it when someone hits back?
Even as a bully you’re inadequate, and you probably know that.
I would be sorry you’re so bitter and defensive McF, you must have been really hurt by something or someone you can’t fight back against, but I know people who’ve had lives that were really shit and I spend my empathy on them.
Ah, making up more shit to deflect from the fact that (at best) the comment you attributed to me was a half-truth.
Focus. Take a breath. Where did I say anything even close to “they’re not supposed to win this way”?
So I’m supposed to respond to your demands? Quibbling over paraphrases is simply jumping through your hoops. Nice try, but I’m not taking the bait – meanwhile, look up your dictionary and see “paraphrase”.
Meanwhile, have you noticed that I’m provoking you ? How do you like it? If you want to play games with me, I’ll play my own too.
Hey, so you don’t want to address the point that you’re an outright and possibly delusional liar. Fair enough. If you want to jack off thinking that you’re Derren Brown, knock yourself out.
And if you’re so illiterate that you don’t know that quotation marks denote a quotation rather than paraphrasing, and that the fact that I never said anything even close to “They’re not supposed to win this way” includes anything that could be reasonably “paraphrased” into that comment, then I think it’s pretty funny. Because I lost my empathy for you when you started making shit up.
So yeah, between this, the TV and cooking dinner, I’m liking it just fine.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
you’re still a lying sack of shit.
big shiny buttons – I can’t resist pushing them, as I said.
Would-be bullies are utterly bewildered when someone hits back. It’s a lesson they need to be taught.
And you’re probably the only victim of stalking on the planet who wants to “push their buttons” and maintain contact with their stalker.
But I guess you’re in the obsessive/delusional stage and need to up your meds on monday, and dinner’s about cooked, so I’ll be offline for a bit.
No, I want to fight them off. Stalkers want their targets to be helpless and I’m determined to show that I’m not going to accept their terms. I want to show other people how scum like you work and I will not ever be a passive victim.
Flounce away if you like, make your excuses ( dinner’s about cooked ) however you like, but I will not play the game by your rules.
Come after me and I will come after you.
Yeah, I’ll take my meds as I always do. Thanks for pointing that out, thanks for showing that you see that as your advantage.
As a warning to everyone else, DO NOT ever let McF know who you are or where you live – his obsession with individuals is very disturbing. As I’ve said, I’ve known a similar person in the past and it wasn’t good.
Just a note, and I mean to warn anyone locked in a possibly abusive relationship, look out for these key signs:
“I’m sorry, I’ll get better, it won’t happen again”
“I’m sorry, but you made me do this”
“It’s your fault”
“You brought it on yourself”
“You really want it”
“I’m really the victim”
“I’ll forgive you if…”
“Everything would be alright if you…”
“Prove that I’m…”
“If only you…”
These are all tools of not only physical but psychological control. Abuse is a game of psychological control, so resist and escape, do not give in, or signal that you will give in.
Do not play their emotional game by their rules.
… and the risk is, if you are in physical proximity, signalling that you will resist will elevate the abuse to the physical, so that is the time when you have to physically escape.
While cyberspace is a medium in which abuse is facilitated, in real life, the abuse is physical. Abusers always rationalise their behaviour by justifying their abuse in some convoluted way. Anyone, please, who starts hearing those phrases, GET OUT and do not look back.
There are refuges – they’re underfunded, but they exist.
McF shows all the signs of someone who follows that path – I know from first hand experience.
Any chance the Flock and Rhino Show could finish for the night, and you both talk about politics instead?
Weka, I would, but McF seems to want to make it all about his power. I think it matters that bullies should be resisted. I’ve had experience of them, and I’ve both been in and know people who have been in abusive situations and I think that it’s important that people know how they happen, how they work and how abusers justify themselves… and in fact, that also happens to be political insofar as politics is about power relationships and how people try to use them.
You think that “politics” is about distant abstractions such as “parties”? this is politics. It’s about someone trying to intimidate and silence their opposition. McF has constantly tried to intimidate and denigrate people who disagree with him. That is not acceptable, whatever one’s ideology.
Bullies must be opposed or at least escaped, but one must never surrender to them.
I’m sorry if you don’t find it personally gratifying.
Well, yes, everything is politics, isn’t it.
Bullying happens on this site from time to time. I’ve called someone out on it myself. I don’t see McFlock bullying in this thread. I see two people abusing each other in public. I fail to see how that is resolving anything, least of all bullying.
Can’t say I’ve noticed McFlock bullying in general, in any over the top kind of way beyond the usual levels of nastiness that often pass for discourse here. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. If it’s at the level of people needing to protect themselves, then I suggest you email one of the Authors or admin and ask them to take a look at the pattern.
Well, James Bond was good cheesy fun. And the chicken was crispy.
I see that I still managed to stalk and be obsessive in absentia.
Can’t say I’ve noticed McFlock bullying in general
“The boys throw stones in jest, but the frogs die in earnest” as the proverb has it. It’s not for you to say, but the targets’.
I don’t appoint you as arbiter.
I suggest you email one of the Authors or admin
Done brushing it under the carpet, doesn’t seem to work.
Abuse and attempted intimidation should not to be defined by some distant third party, but the target, as the perpetrator does it by means devised to avoid any third party.
I appreciate your intentions, but you are being naive.
In any case, abusers must be resisted, or they simply learn that they can get away with what they do. It’s not a trivial matter and it’s not “political” in the sense that it relates to something far away. It’s immediate and everywhere and it must be stopped.
I don’t know how McF treats his (I’m sure that he’s male) partner (whatever their gender is), but his manner in response to opposition is worrying and I really do not think that one can separate the personal from the political. Those “on the left” can still be tyrants and bullies and that in itself is political.
Are you saying that you are being bullied?
Weka: Are you saying that you are being bullied?
I’m saying that he tries to.
Again, that’s not up to you to decide. Really, you’re on thin ice here. While this obviously isn’t sexual abuse, I know plenty of victims of sexual abuse and always, there is a struggle over what constitutes “abuse”, with an intention by the abuser to take control, defining what “abuse” is on their own terms… well, there’s an old proverb – “Who defines the terms wins the argument.” Never let anyone else write the terms for you.
In what position are you appointing yourself?
I’m not appointing myself to any position, I’m just expressing opinion and sharing what I see. All I’ve said is that I haven’t seen McFlock bullying in general (beyond the usual abuse that happens here), but that they could be.
Looks to me like you are the one doing all the appointing.
btw, I don’t agree with your basic premise on who gets to determine what is bullying. There is something odd about how you have just argued this using sexual abuse as a comparison. You appear to be saying “I’m a victim of abuse therefore I get to ultimately define what is abuse and everyone else is wrong if they don’t agree with me. You also appear to be missing that I’m not in direct disgreement with you.
btw2, I never said that bullying and abuse isn’t political, so please stop running that line.
Well Weka, I take what you say in good faith, but you have to realise that people who have been the subject of abuse and manipulation have a different perspective on things. I remember a counsellor of mind asking me, very pointedly “why did you give X so much power?” I thought about that and in the end realised that they were manipulating me. I learned to see the signs of (attempted) manipulation and guilt-tripping and saw how insidious they can be. The impulse to abuse isn’t all about fists, it can simply be an unacknowledged compulsion to exert control – emphasis on “compulsion” and “control”.
It is NOT an “objective” matter, but a subjective one. Power in itself is someone’s attempt to exert control over another person, by any means, be it brute force or emotional manipulation via guilt tripping, body image or whatever.
I’m sure you mean well, but I’ve learnt from my feminist friends that there are far more insidious means of exerting power than simply sending thugs around with truncheons, and they happen at both the social/cultural level and the personal.
The fact that you don’t see McF trying to bully is irrelevant. Again, there is the proverb, “the boys may throw stones in jest, but the frogs die in earnest.” That may seem very selfish by someone who is not a frog, but very real to the frogs nonetheless.
You also appear to be missing that I’m not in direct disgreement with you.
Thank you for that – indeed you are correct, but from my own experience and that of people I know, I do think that more needs to be said, if not for your benefit, but for some who might be reading this.
I get to ultimately define what is abuse and everyone else is wrong if they don’t agree with me
Sorry, again, I accept your good faith, but that does “look” like “if I can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist.” Ask the targets. I won’t say “victims”.
“Well Weka, I take what you say in good faith”
Thanks, I appreciate that.
“I’m sure you mean well, but I’ve learnt from my feminist friends that there are far more insidious means of exerting power than simply sending thugs around with truncheons, and they happen at both the social/cultural level and the personal.”
I think you are arguing against something I haven’t said or done. I have a pretty good understanding of abuse dynamics and the forms that abuse takes. You can use the search ‘weka bully’ to see how I dealt with calling someone out on this in the past.
“It is NOT an “objective” matter, but a subjective one.”
For the person being abused/bullied, yes. But in the public sphere, more than the subjective is needed. This is why criminal prosecutions of sexual abuse are so difficult (that, and rape culture). I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take steps to deal with bullying if it is happening here. But I do think that as other people get involved, there needs to be something beyond your subjective experience. You can say to me “I say it is so” and I don’t really have anything to go on (if I knew you it might be different). But if you say “this is my experience, and here are some examples that demonstrate the problem”, then there is something that I can make sense of. (I’m not suggesting you give examples, it’s late).
“Power in itself is someone’s attempt to exert control over another person, by any means, be it brute force or emotional manipulation via guilt tripping, body image or whatever.”
Yes, but not all exertions of power are abuse. Generally there needs to be a power differential. I think bullying is a distinct dynamic, because sometimes there is no obvious power differential like there is in other kinds of abuse.
And how power dynamics play out has alot to do with the histories and internal resources of the people involved. There are also issues of horizontal/lateral abuse, where there can be grey areas that don’t fit into conventional theories of abuse dynamics.
“I get to ultimately define what is abuse and everyone else is wrong if they don’t agree with me”
Sorry, again, I accept your good faith, but that does “look” like “if I can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist.” Ask the targets. I won’t say “victims”.
It only looks like denial if you are making inaccurate assumptions about what I am saying. See above. My wanting examples of bullying (they can be subjective even) and not accepting your say so, is not denial of the dynamic. It’s a mistake to be thinking that IMO, because it means that all accusations of bullying and abuse have to be ‘believed’ irrespective of whether they are true or not. Again, what I am saying is there are differences in levels of truth when one deals with things personally, and when one takes them into the public sphere (and those differences exist for good reasons).
(I’m also not convinced that abusing bullies is a good strategy for solving problems of bullying, but that is probably a conversation for another time).
Weka, first, I am not in disagreement with you at any point. I am not accusing you of anything. I have no malice and intend no insult towards you. I don’t want to argue with you because I don’t disagree with you.
Rather than replying to every point you make, which would be rather time-consuming and tedious to any spectators, I’ll be brief, because it is late.
I do see that McF has repeatedly tried to silence his critics through abuse directed towards particular corespondents on this blog. He has done this repeatedly and in a way that, to be frank, seems rather creepy and obsessive in some personal cases.
Abuse cannot be ever be allowed to be defined by the perpetrator, because then it becomes legitimised on their terms.
That is my problem with McF – repeatedly he says (paraphrased) “it’s OK, because I don’t think it’s abuse”.
I don’t think that that’s good enough.
I think that we should be free on this blog to voice criticism of the powerful, but no-one should be allowed to shut down debate through attacks on corespondents on this blog if they are not obviously breaking rules – but McF repeatedly tries to do so through personal denigration and intimidation. “Go fuck yourself” seems to be his usual comeback, which is not particularly constructive, witty or illuminating.
I think that is also useful to know how people who are abusive in personal relationships must have their methods exposed, bullies must never be even passively enabled, because the personal really does mirror the political.
Ok, thanks for that. I’ll keep an eye out and see what I think with comments in context.
@ Rhinocrates….there will always be mean spirited people…and the manipulators and the abusers…and I expect there will be a ferocious fight coming up if Cuinliffe wins…..the question is what one does with that energy….on the positive side it sharpens wits and verbal swords like yours….
…sometimes it is worth a major fight , even a war…..sometimes a good humoured skirmish….sharp exposure …. and then a scarper….guerrilla warfare
….with your verbal abilities and commitment to fighting abuse and bullying….in all its psychological/soul shades of black and yellow….I suggest you become a writer/novelist , if you are not one already…..
@ Rhinocrates….I think that not only was McFock’s chicken dinner crispy…..but you created a crispy ‘McFlock Flambe’……he hasnt been heard from since
….but he may be back as a somewhat chastened, sooty and charred Bird….
I suggest you become a writer/novelist , if you are not one already…..
Thank you Chooky. In fact, I am.
Before you ask, it doesn’t pay well.
@ chooky: yeah, nah. Didn’t sit in front of a computer until 3. Probably failing in my job description as an obsessive stalker, there.
@ McFlock….pleased you are back ……and Rhinocrates didnt kill you
I like to sleep in on weekends.
Without wishing to be caught up in the strange little thing you have going on with McFlock, I don’t think the above can really be allowed to go by uncommented. You have a way with words and you often use them yourself in ways that are designed to hurt and humiliate others. Abusive terms like ‘mublefuck’ and ‘arsewipes’ – always clearly aimed at a person – spew from you in little ejaculations of bile. You referred to Grant Roberston as ‘a cancer on the Labour party’ the other day.
That’s three egregious examples from one short thread of comments. You do this sort of all the time. Either toughen up, or stop dishing it out if you aren’t willing to take it.
Or if you must have it both ways, change your name to something more representative – Jellyfishcrates might suit, hinting both at your ability to sting and your natural invertebrate state.
And for what it is worth, I do not think much of your idea that abuse must ‘never’ be defined by the ‘perpetrator.’ Your definition is handily tautological, of course, because if there is a ‘perpetrator’ there must be some degree of abuse – it implies intention to cause hurt. But that does not mean everything that causes offence or hurt is abuse. Just because you feel abused, it does not mean someone has abused you.
change your name to
Do not presume to dictate to anyone what they should or say or how they should name themselves. That is not your prerogative.
McF has repeatedly bullied people on this site and he needs to learn what it is like to see someone hitting back. Bullies must never be enabled.
Just because you feel abused, it does not mean someone has abused you.
You should speak to people who have been the targets of abuse. It must never be up to their abusers to define what they are entitled to do. There is no “objective” authority in such cases, because the measure of their crime is their intention and their effect. McF seeks to intimidate and harm people in order to silence criticism.
Yeah, I say nasty things about people with power who want still more power. You really fail to understand the nature of power – those who have it have an advantage over those who don’t, and to paraphrase the trite line from Spiderman, it entails responsibility too. Beltway Grant and Mumblefuck aren’t common citizens – they are aristocrats with special power, protection and income. I refuse to defer to them or treat as my superior someone who pretends to be a lord and wants to be a king.
If you persist in dishing out abuse, do not be surprised – or offended – if it is returned to you. Do not try to claim the moral high ground when you are knee deep in filth. It isn’t hard to be mostly polite, even to people you dislike.
As for how you should name yourself, I’m sorry. I won’t ever dare to dictate how you should name yourself. Jellyfish, after all, might be insulted by the association.
Sorry, what was it you said earlier? “Abuse cannot be ever be allowed to be defined by the perpetrator, because then it becomes legitimised on their terms.”
Gotcha. Your abuse of others is legitimate on your terms.
do not be surprised – or offended
I’m not surprised or “offended” – and I will not be intimidated by it either.
Here, throw this at me:
“Offence” doesn’t worry me, though attempts at intimidation might if someone knew who I am and where I live – and McF has that weird obsessive nature that could make that serious.
I would be hurt and offended if you were someone I knew and respected. You are neither, so your claims are irrelevant.
I say nasty things about people with power who want still more power
Look at that.
Learn what power is, and how it is toxic. No one is due special deference, and those with power who want more power are almost by definition people who need even more attention and criticism and even ridicule. I’m not a hero-worshipper and if lots of people are, then I start to worry.
If you think that people with power or the potential to gain it are immune to criticism, then they are dangerous and you are a fool.
oh, were you “hitting back”?
You randomly decided to intentionally “push my buttons” and invent half-truths about me and what I said, and then go into big rants about sexual abuse and bullying (as if my behaviour here has anything to do with either), and claimed once again that I’m obsessed with you and so on, all apparently to “teach me a lesson” when I have managed (with little effort) to ignore all your comments for weeks or months.
Not sure when we had our last run-in. It might have been six weeks ago, where you replied to my comment that was in no way related to you. Come to think of it, most of the run-ins I recall this year have been started by you replying to unrelated comments or just making shit up about me again.
Do you really not see the funny side of doing all that and still claiming to be the one being “bullied”?
I don’t give a shit about what points you want to make or where you make them. If you reply to my comments or just randomly make shit up about me (like this time), then I’ll reply according to whim. That is my only (minor) interest in your activities.
And if you don’t like rude words, I don’t give a fuck.
” McF seeks to intimidate and harm people in order to silence criticism.”
At the risk of getting shot down with some wonderful literary creation, I’ve never observed this, and it seems a gross exaggeration to say the least.
I don’t give a shit
If you didn’t, you wouldn’t post – so obviously you do.
I also seem to recall that you said some time that you’d never respond to me again.
I have Prozac. It’s great. Try it yourself.
I guess your persistence paid off. It was either that or let a delusional dickhead repeat lies about me, unanswered.
But I’m really not sure you realise how little effort is involved in pressing “reply”. It really is significantly less effort than many a crap I have made. Although I have boosted my fibre intake recently.
Fender, that’s because you’ve never been the target. I have been, and know many people who have been targets, and always there are specious justifications and bystanders who say “what’s the big deal?”. You’re being naive – start listening to people.
Thing is, though, I don’t think NOT calling someone ‘mumblefuck’ or describing them as a ‘cancer’ is showing them ‘special deference’. I don’t go around calling normal people things like that, so not using these terms to describe powerful people is not ‘deference’. It’s called being polite.
All I see here is an abuser trying to legitimise his abuse. Deserved it, did they? Kind of asking for it, even, were they? They make you do it, don’t they, what with their power seeking and ambition?
Although I have boosted my fibre intake recently.
OK, that’s just getting weird. If you want to describe your bowel movements, then do so with your GP. I can infer that your statement has something to do with an attempt to score points, but I cannot and do not want to know what the game is. Keep your scatophilia to yourself please.
Power is never polite. By its nature it is arrogance and must always be brought down.
what with their power seeking and ambition?
Exactly. You think that it’s a trivial thing, a mere peccadillo?
it was to do with not giving a shit.
Ah well, not all my material is my best. As it were.
Fish. Cucumber. Cole slaw. Mayonnaise! Shoes. Ask not what you can do for your pudding!
You didn’t get the (not particularly good, admittedly) joke. No need to be a dick about it.
Diddums. Anyway, I like being a dick.
really? For me it’s more a disability I try (with varying success) to overcome.
[ Bill: McFlock. Remind me. When did I give you that warning about harassment?
oh okay, I’m off for the night. I did say “varying degrees of success”.
[cue rhino to rant sanctimoniously while pretending that he in no way had anything to do with it]
You really don’t see what you are doing, do you? It’s classic abuser behaviour.
Minimize / Deny – by describing your abuse as just saying ‘nasty things’ and saying that NOT calling someone ‘a cancer on humanity’ is ‘special deference’ rather than what normal, non-abusive people do.
Justify – because they deserve it, really, don’t they? They ‘need even more attention and criticism and even ridicule.’
Blaming the victim – make it their fault, because wanting political power is bad, worse than ‘a mere peccadillo’ – interesting description of the desire to use politics to help people – and this justifies your behaviour.
Still, it doesn’t matter, because you think politicians are fair game – in fact you see it as a duty to abuse them; though you also complain that some try to justify abuse that is “political” as somehow ‘not relevant.’ Then use the defence yourself when called on your abusive railing.
Oh, is this where the current outbreak of silliness started?
In fairness, the alleged quote/paraphrase – “They’re not supposed to win this way, they were on a steady course with Shearer” was clearly flagged as something you are GOING to say “in coming months”; not something you are supposed to have said.
So you’re wrong, and look stupid for not realising.
But it isn’t a paraphrase, because you can’t paraphrase something someone hasn’t said yet. I think Rhinocrates may have meant ‘parody.’
So he’s wrong, as well, and looks stupid.
Hey, I like silliness. Read John Ralston Saul’s Voltaire’s Bastards Too much seriousness has got us in to a lot of trouble.
@ Rhinocrates….you should be a crime writer …it should have stalkers in it … spies and politicians …..and Philosopher Kings…. and the internet….and strange birds cooking crispy chicken and watching cheesy James Bond films (ha ha)
…in fact that sounds so good i might have to write it myself
….i am told crime writers have a helluva lot more fun than romance writers …. who are likely to stab you in the back at their conventions
I’ve no idea why he felt compelled to bring me into his fantasy at all.
Oh, that’s right: he wanted to push my big shiny buttons, so he could complain about being bullied, or proudly bully so I got a taste of all my misdeeds, or something.
Yes, I am pushing buttons – and look how you light up and dance!
McFlock – I have been reading your comments for years and although we have had the odd run in, I appreciate them. Kia kaha.
cheers marty – likewise 🙂
Um… to be pedantic, as you are trying to be…
So you’re wrong, and look stupid for not realising.
Realising what? This is an incomplete sentence.
Also, a paraphrase is a version of something that has never been said, but which is implicit in what has already been said, so that “logical” analysis with talk about the future means nothing.
You claim to be a writer, I’m sure you can work it out.
Oh, and I repeat: you can not paraphrase something that has not been said. Pretending you can by engaging in silly games by pretending a paraphrase is by definition something not said makes you look a fool; a paraphrase is a rewording of a prior utterance. You can not paraphrase something that has not been uttered. If you are going to continue with this absurdity, please cite an authority, and spare us the bluster.
While assuring the voters that they weren’t at all homophobic, National would also mention Robertson’s sexuality several times a day. I’m not sure whether this would help them or not, but I’d hope not.
That’s why Hoots, the Penguin and Whalecum exist – National doesn’t need to do any dogwhistling when they’ve outsourced it. See “plausible deniability”.
That Nats might want a third term, but I get the distinct impression John Key doesn’t.
Here’s a wee job for you Dorothy. Column inches of acknowledgement/analysis of Labgre-leading Roys compared to their Nacti counterparts for the last 12 months. Tomorrow’s Gran’s compared to last month’d be a good starter. Ta luv
Shearer going and leaving Labour leaderless has had an uplifting effect on the polls. Figure that.
Imagine what another 6 months would have done ;-p
Oh, so now a 1% shift for labour is a change 🙂
Don’t forget the increase in undecideds and the Greens. And regardless, the electorate isn’t missing Shearer at all.
see – the leadership is largely irrelevant 🙂
lol – waiting for that one 🙂
Either Grant or David will be a significant improvement on Shearer. Whoever takes the leadership position needs to bring the two factions of caucus tightly together however. That’s the biggest challenge, and the biggest danger.
Of course, being a Cunliffe worshipper/zealot/fanatic/fanboy I would prefer he takes it 😈
At most there’s 10%-odd in it for labour. Barring his last two months, shearer was pretty much on track for that. Regardless, I reckon 47% for labour alone is right out.
Shearer was right on track for 18 of the 20 months he was Leader? OK…
Yep, pretty much. Solid. Not spectacular. But enough. Especially from the 27% start line.
I think even you could agree that the last couple of months were significantly (figurative and statistical) different from the previous 18.
When exactly was Labour routinely polling 35-36%? That’s what they need. I don’t recall that happening with Shearer as leader.
McFlock has to keep up the storyline that Shearer was “on track” for 90% of his leadership, and only fell over at the last moment, surprising most people.
I’m hoping the new leader of which I am hoping is Cunliffe as I can’t see Robertson being as electrifying as Cunliffe will bring that to over 40% but any improvement in the polls would definitely defeat the National Party.
Lanth, expecting the incoming leader to immediately poll at the level required to win is not realistic. If the change does give a bounce, it can disappear as quickly as it appeared. And that theory goes for all leadership changes, not just shearer – look at Rudd.
So I prefer slow and steady progress. When it suddenly turns into four consecutive polling drops after a pretty consistent ‘3-up 1-down’ pattern, then I become concerned.
Shearer was leader for 20 months. You said “Barring his last two months, shearer was pretty much on track for that”.
So please, show me where under Shearer’s leadership, Labour were polling 35-36%, because that’s where they need to be, with the Greens polling 12-13%, to have a chance of winning the election without having to make massive compromises.
When did they need to be there? From february 2012, when they only got 27% in nov 2011?
They sure as shit weren’t getting polling points at 23%, like before the 2011 election.
“When did they need to be there? From february 2012, when they only got 27% in nov 2011?”
I notice you keep dodging the question by somehow implying that it would be unrealistic for it to have happened instantly after Shearer took over.
Of course that would be unrealistic. And I have never suggested that they should have been polling that high shortly after he took over.
Shearer had 20 months. You are contending that Labour was on the right track with Shearer as leader to win the election. I think polling 35-36% counts as “being on the right track”, because even that amount with the Greens getting 12-13% doesn’t guarantee a victory.
So, when during Shearer’s leadership – at any point – did they consistently poll around 35-36%, or higher. You claimed it happened, put up the evidence.
Did I claim that Labour were routinely polling 35-36%? I don’t think so.
what I claimed was that Labour had steady if slow progress for most of shearer’s term, barring the last two months. And I stand by that. They only need to reach 35-36% before the election. Not halfway through the term.
“If a National Election were held now the latest NZ Roy Morgan Poll shows that a Labour/ Greens alliance would win easily.”
Win what exactly? NACT/NZF/MP still have more % than L/GP/Mana. Looking at TRP’s seat count in comment 1, it still doesn’t look like a win for the left.
you have to remember that the Maori Party’s % is pretty much meaningless, they have 3 electorate seats,
Tamaki-Makarau, currently occupied by Pita Sharples with a 1000 vote majority over Shane Jones, dare i suggest that Jones will win that for Labour in 2014,
Waiariki, currently held by Flavell with a couple of thousand votes over Mana’s Annette Sykes, the only way Flavell is getting back into the Parliament is if Labour hoover up more of His shrinking vote than Annette can,
Auntie Tariana’s seat is going to be vacant now She has decided she has had enough rides in the Beamer, i don’t think Mana can win this seat but Labour could,
On the numbers as they now stand National will have to have NZFirst on it’s side of the House to Govern along with Banks and the ‘Hairdo’,
‘The left’ have until November 2014 to pull another 1-2% of the vote on the current numbers to make it a certainty,
Not a big ask in my opinion…
“you have to remember that the Maori Party’s % is pretty much meaningless, they have 3 electorate seats,”
Yes I know that, I included them for clarity, because RM seemed to just be adding up the percentages. I’m unclear how anyone can call that poll as an easy win for L/GP, given it would be an MMP election.
It’s an easy win for LABGR if you take the 6% undecideds and split half of them for the NATs and half of them for LABGR.
Why would you do that?
Because the undecideds party gets 0% in the election day MMP calculations; they have to go somewhere.
Bit of a stretch to assume all of those undecideds would vote, and that all of them would vote for either National or Labour, though. Much more likely is that we’ll still have a very significant no-vote, although hopefully not one that’s larger than Labour or National’s share of the vote this time. (The last election, if Didn’t Vote were a party, it would have had more seats than either large party)
The undecideds don’t have to vote for their role to be zeroed out on election day. Removing the undecideds from this poll and only counting decided voters only puts LABGRN over 50%, for instance. That’s an easy govt right there.
Right, the safest thing to do is just not count the undecideds and base parliament on people who have decided, and then just say how many still need to make their mind up.
It is probably really good news though that people being polled are undecided, as that means they care enough to answer but have not really made up their mind. That could indicate more unmotivated voters swinging Labour’s way in the future. 🙂
Yeah there’s a bit of truth in that, also expect Cunliffe as leader to drag in, in coming months,another 1-2% who didn’t vote last time round,
The numbers are lookin good…
i think Roy just lumps everyone into either ‘governing party’ or ‘opposition party’ without considering the intricacies involved with an ‘either way’ party like NZFirst,
Given that NZFirst is at this time part of the opposition it’s easy to see how Roy could see the numbers as an easy victory for the left,
While the Green vote is polling high my vote remains with Mana hopefully helping to propel MP number two into the Parliament for Mana whether they win Waiariki or not…
Correct, bad12. RM is slowly getting used to our form of democracy. A year ago the headline would have been ‘National still have big lead over Labour’. But recently, they seem to have got the message that our system produces results more like the Aussie senate, and the analysis has improved as a result.
That is why we need the right labour leader who is Cunliffe to take the polls further so we can have a huge majority in parliament and he has this current poll as a good start.
You think Winston will go with Key? Dream on! National without Key – maybe. Remember he said he will not support any party that will sell assets.
That’s what people thought in 1996, when everyone thought a vote for NZ First was a vote for Labour, then Winston ended up supporting National.
None the less, imagine how interesting a Key-Winston government would be…
That was more to do with Jim Anderton refusing to go into coalition with NZF. Mind you, you should be grateful – had NZF not gone into coalition with National, ACT would have, and look how “interesting” that’s turned out. There was also some promise the Nats made about ending asset sales, but unfortunately they didn’t follow through.
That’s why you have negotiations, of course. Winston supports National, national agree to forego any asset sales. He gets his baubles back, they get to carry on stuffing up the country in other ways. That’s democracy, ain’t it great.
Didn’t work out in 1996 and, to paraphrase Leviticus, only a dog returns to its own vomit. And even if that did happen, would you rather have another National-ACT coalition? Are you that much of a masochist?
“A leaderless Labour with Greens help would apparently defeat John Key.”
That gets my vote for the-most-amusing-assessment-of-a-poll award.
The non-voters speaking out perhaps?
My question is, can a Cunliffe lead Labour pull 37-39% of the vote in November 2014, befor anyone falls about the place laughing at the notion check where National where sitting 6 months ago in the Roy Morgan poll,
The gloss has certainly come off the Slippery head of National’s current abysmal Government, it’s a long way down on the roller coaster from ‘governing alone’ or even 47% but the empty suitcase of intellectual rigor we have as the current Prime Minister has managed almost single handedly, while Labour has struggled over it’s question of leadership, to destroy His party’s chances of a third term in 2014,
Does a rejuvenated Labour have the policy to pull 3-5% of the vote off of the crowded fence of the non-vote bloc and what are those policies,
The question for National in the face of such an abysmal poll is will they wait it out till November 2014 while Labour gather strength around it’s new leader, or will Slippery using something like the Dunne/ Maori Party opposition to the proposed changes to the RMA couple an early election with the referendum He has to hold on asset sales,
Given an upcoming Roy Morgan, along with their own National Party internal polling, which puts National under 40% of the vote will Slippery the Prime Minister get to contest the 2014 election at all, at what point does Judith Collins have the numbers to roll the little prick, She was confident enough a month ago to openly tell Slippery She was after His job,
Far from a blood-bath within the Labour Caucus, the media should be looking askance of National as to when the knives begin flashing in public…
And who had a major role in John Key losing popularity?
Maybe, just maybe, Slippery got it all wrong and ‘the people’ did care about the GCSB Legislation after all…
That was purely due to the way the media decided to spin that story.
Tough luck then ae, having had the media ‘spin’ go solidly their way for 5 long years National support is so fragile that it cannot stand a couple of months of spin the other way,
Who would have thunk it and as my guitar gently weeps for the sad plight of National i can only reflect that having bought the 2008 election with the tax switch such support was always going to evaporate as the sugar rush wore off…
Hows Cunliffe getting spun by the media?
Poor old Cunners, it’s going to be a hard road.
Lolz hard road not at all, watch the Roy Morgan after Sunday’s leadership result, should Labour gain a couple of % in the next 2-3 Roy Morgans even the absolute haters of Cunliffe in the Labour Caucus,(pre-supposing there are any outside of media spin that is), will all sniff Victory and that will silence the hardest of dissenters…
The media will make or break you.
Unfortunately that’s how the game works, Key forgot how the game worked and paid the price, poor old Cunners refuses to play the game and will be destroyed because of it.
Whats that old saying
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Despite months of negative press both in print and on the TV Labour gain a % point in the polls,
If that is a media driven ‘breaking’ of Labour then all i can say is LOLZ bring it….
A lot of it is about laggy timing in the public perception.
What we are seeing in the most recent poll is the effect of the rising debate over the GCSB.
In the event that we win the America’s cup over the coming week, then you can expect that the government’s figures will receive a boost in the polls taken at the end of October.
Good points lprent, well worth noting. It would be easy to say that Shearer was a liability, which was my opinion, bit not a proven fact. We’ll see what happens in later polls. The fact that the media has been focussing on the leadership contest may focus public attention on Labour policy or ideals and that may raise their rating…
The pen is mightier than the SPIN – eventually.
You’re right about the MSM though – they are not going to give Key’s opponents one iota of fair and balanced reporting; they will obfuscate, lie through their teeth, distract and ignore any positives they can without batting an eyelid, because they are the one’s that matter and to hell with democracy.Facts; investigative journalism, a bit of digging, asking some hard questions of Key – what are they? Puleese!!
While the ‘pen may be mightier than the sword’ you ‘can’t wrap a fire in paper’….
“Hows Cunliffe getting spun by the media?”
Same way he’s getting spun by you; as a serious threat to the right wing.
If National loses this election it will be the first 2-term National government in the entire history of the National party. Led by your hero, John Key.
True. But let’s see if we have even made it to base camp tomorrow.
Not even base camp as the unity team under the great leader hasnt even been assembled yet for the long march!
Which is a result of MMP.
Not necessarily. The MMP Clark government was only the 2nd Labour government in history to last longer than 2 terms.
Correct. NZ has had far more terms under Tory governments than Labour ones.
It hasn’t been all that lopsided really. If you take it from the first Lab Govt in 1935 (there really wasn’t a leftist party in the hunt before that) then the Nats have spent roughly 43 years in power to Labs 35 yrs. Only 2 or 3 terms different. I got a bit confused doing a quick count because some Govts didn’t last full terms. But it looks as though roughly speaking it’s 12 terms to Lab and as of next year 14 to Nat.
PS. If you want to look pre 1935, would you count the Liberals as “Tory”?
My point is actually that National governments won many elections with a minority of the popular vote, because we were under FPP. If we had been under MMP, they would have lost those elections and we would have had more Labour/left governments.
Lanthanide, I disagree.
minority wins: 8
majority wins: 7
total wins: 15
53% minority wins
minority wins: 4
majority wins: 6
total wins: 10
40% minority wins
(Figures only compared during the time when both Labour and National existed)
So National didn’t win that many more elections with a minority of the vote when compared with Labour. Also, as these figures show, National has won far more elections than Labour. It’s plausible to consider that Labour’s wins were therefore more emphatic as people were thoroughly sick of the incumbent National government of the day. As the saying goes, it’s not that opposition parties get voted in, it’s that governments get voted out.
Key will have billions from asset sales to spend on election year lollies. That is his big trump card. There is nothing the opposition can do about it.
A week is a long time in politics. 14 months are a millennium.
Trump card??? you are joking right, Slippery and Bill from Dipton have already ‘spent’ the asset sales monies twice over,
Should they try spending it x3 leading into the next election even the tame media will start yelling foul…
The proposed billions in the asset sales is shrivelling by the day as we can see even the bankers think it should be canned but if I can predict John Key he doesn’t listen to anybody anyway.
Will key still get a knighthood if nat doesnt win next time?
Well Tracey if the recent history of CEO’s is anything to go bye ,because of the mess this lot have left Aotearoa in he will be made a Lord..
Roy Morgan polls vary so much it is hard to take them seriously. Sixweeks ago, National was polling over 50%. Not it has supposedly lost 10% for no obviously good reason? Labour returns to normal 32% after another (likely methodological) wobble and the Greens are shown at near maximum support. It’s a farce. You probably need to allow for about +5% to National and -5% to the Greens and then it is back to coin toss territory. It’s still winnable (as it was with Shearer) but unless Labour gets to within shouting distance of Labour, I think it will be a Pyhrric victory – a one tem, uneasy coalition with the Greens, not able to accomplish much and dismissed in 2017 by a disgusted electorate.
The fact that RM polls vary so much is a reflection of their accuracy, lurgee. They have been the most accurate predictors of results both side of the Tasman for ages now and they seem very good as showing the normal day to day swings and changes of opinion that voters are prone to making.
Now THAT’S funny! For a moment I thought you were serious. Oh, wait a minute …
I don’t think people’s opinions ossilate that wildly. Have you noticed many people here abouts going “Cunliffe … no, Robertson! Wait, maybe Shane? Oh, Cunliffe! Why isnt Mallard running? Andrew Little, the best leader we can’t have?”
Come off it, you know your claim is ridiculous. Claiming Roy Morgan are more accurate because their numbers are all over the place is like suggesting TV psychics actually do read minds because they throw out so many hooks they always catch some naive fish. I predict that, at the 2013 election, National will get … between 30% and 55% of the vote! Labour, between 25% and 45%! That’s not accurate, it’s barely better than guessing.
Roy Morgan’s methodology is dubious and their polls need to be treated with extreme caution. Even Cameron Slater recognised this, when RM was putting Key at over 50%. It’s just silly.
HA HA HA, quoting Blubber-boy as recognizing anything except His own impotence in the face of a resurgent ‘left’ is today’s Joke par excellence…
Lurgee don’t like this poll very much it seems and no credible argument there from our dear Lurgee
the only emotion I feel towards the sad, mishappen children of Mr Roy Morgan is pity. Some are huge, some are tiny. Some are beautiful, some are ugly. No two of them look the same and that’s why you have to question who their parents really are.
Lolz, yeah Roy is only right when He has National polling as Governing alone, lolz, imagine this if you can,
A resurgent Labour pulling 37% of the vote in November 2014 along with the Greens polling 13%, and then, lolz, Winston decides His final show will be as Minister of Foreign Affairs with the price being only confidence and supply along with Mana surprising everyone but me by picking up 2 electorate and 1 party vote seat,
Sounds more like a 3-4 term Labour lead Government of the left to me…
RM isn’t right when it shows National polling 51%, idiot. It’s still very likely wrong, just as the current 41% is very likely wrong. The numbers are all over the show. It’s impossible to trust such variable results.
RM has had National polling mid to low 40’s on and off for 12 months now. This one poll result fits that year long trend.
Labour continues to sit in the low 30% range. Again, it fits what RM has been reporting for some time now.
I’d say ‘low’ is a bit hopeful. They’ve had 7 results above 45% and 9 results below 45% in 2013 (ccan’t be bothered working out an average) which would suggest the average is about 45% and the polls up at 50% and down at 40% are outliers. There’s just too much variability to say there is a trend. Pretty much everything seems to be in the +/-5% range, which is what I give RM for the big parties.
Aw diddums, have we got you frothing at the mouth, impotent with rage perhaps, keep the above scenario in mind for November 2014 won’t you, it will save me having to tell you i told you so lolz…
Circumspection mate, this is not the time for victory lapping.
Suit yourself, i am having an enjoyable morning talking up the chances of victory in November 2014,(by my estimation pretty high),
You can of course choose to wallow in the negative if you so wish, lolz, should there be a loss in November 2014 i will be up the next day talking up a win in 2017,(but i don’t think i will have the need)…
Frothing? You’re capering about because of a dodgy poll by a company with suspect methodology. It’s pathetic when even Slater can see something is dodgy with Roy Morgan and you can’t.
Just to maximize my amusement this morning can you throw some illumination onto exactly why Blubber-boy sees something dodgy with this particular Roy Morgan,(other than the fact it shows National as being pretty much f**ked that is),
What exactly does this ‘suspect methodology’ look like???…
You’re a bit challenged, aren’t you? Slater commented on ROy Morgan’s methodology when RM showed National at 51%, not the current poll. That was pretty clear, I thought, from when I posted, “Even Cameron Slater recognised this, when RM was putting Key at over 50%.”
If you are not capable of following threads or connecting ideas across posts, maybe you should go back to the nursery.
Aw there there, no need to be such a sore loser this morning, take tho half a brownie point for the attempt at avoiding answering the question,
Given that it is you quoting Blubber-boy and extrapolating Blubber-boy’s comment on a previous poll to also include this one you should be able to enlighten us all as to what exactly this ‘flawed methodology’ is,
Or, ha ha ha are we all to simply take the word of Blubber-boy as gospel when ‘It’ is quoted by you commenting on a different Roy Morgan…
I didn’t ‘quote blubberboy’. I mentioned a instance where he had enjoyed one of his lucid fits. It’s worth noting that he did that when RM published a poll showing National at 51%, when he could have used this as an excuse to bray and slaver about how well national were doing. Instead he did the – by his standards – sane thing and wrote off the poll as some sort of freak, of the sort RM produce all too often. It is also worth noting that 51% poll was only six weeks ago. We’re supposed to take a polls showing that much variability seriously? They’re probably both outliers and leave RM’s methodology open to question.
You’re like one of Pavlov’s more hysterical dogs. the mention of Slater has sent you into a hysterical fit. Just because the man rarely talks sense, doesn’t meean he never does.
You, on the otherhand …
If this is a reference to my concerns about RM’s methodology, it had already been addressed below: “Roy Morgan need to look at their selection process, weighting, questioning and so on. Because something is likely amiss if they are recording such big swings.”
Forgive me if I couldn’t be bothered the same thing for a dim troll to ignore or misrepresent.
Even stopped clocks tell the correct time twice a day. Slater – unlike you – managed to work out that a poll showing something he liked wasn’t correct simply because he liked it.
Since the methodology is pretty much the same as the other polling companies and the only substantive difference is that RM is done about every two weeks, and the other polls are done every 6-8 weeks. Then doesn’t that suggest to you that the other polls have exactly the same level of variability? Individual polls have a high variability. Numbers of polls taken regularly and using the same methodology show a trend.
But in this case I suspect that the latest result is almost exactly on the main trends
National have been declining steadily since the election. Labour has managed a small increase. Greens and NZ First have made been largely steady, with one or the other usually picking up when National gets a large decline. Indicates a lot of soft National support.
Lurgee, it’s entirely possible that WhaleSpew wouldn’t like a poll that showed Key NAct going up, given his obscene fantasies about Crusher Collins as leader. He cannot be analysed using any rationale designed for relatively normal people.
I’d say the trend for National is steady at about 45%, which is frighteningly high given they are deep in their second term, evil, and frighteningly useless.
They only go by what the people tell them Lurgee a poll is an indication not the absolute right way. Idiot.
It isn’t as easy as phoning up a few people and asking them who they think they are going to vote for. Roy Morgan need to look at their selection process, weighting, questioning and so on. Because something is likely amiss if they are recording such big swings.
I haven’t suggested the poll is the ‘right way’ – just that all polls – and RM in particular – need to be treated with caution. RM in particular because they are very, very volatile.
“Because something is likely amiss if they are recording such big swings.”
Why? If it weren’t for swings we’d never have a change of govt.
I find it interesting how lurgee has been so busy attacking the RM. He’s never done it before.
I thought the most interesting thing from their original comment was this (so much revealed in one statement)
It’s still winnable (as it was with Shearer) but unless Labour gets to within shouting distance of Labour, I think it will be a Pyhrric victory – a one tem, uneasy coalition with the Greens, not able to accomplish much and dismissed in 2017 by a disgusted electorate.
There seems to be an agenda going on, but I’ve never quite figured it out. Self-hating leftie? Dog in the manger? Or just scared of the GP?
National spinner or some kind of strange ABC sect.
If you find my posting history ‘interesting’ then I REALLY think you need to get out more. Though obviously you can’t find it that interesting, as I think a real scholar of Lurgeeology would know I’ve had a few discussions on the topic of polling here and there. Often with you, which makes your ‘brain fade’ rather worrying. Or deliberate?
Note that in all the above I’m generally ‘pushing’ the same line – don’t get excited about polls, particularly not RM polls. A Green / Labour alliance is not a given and might be a disaster for 2017.
Now, I suppose, I’ll be told that these aren’t the right sort of comments, or there aaren’t enough of them.
Putting all that aside, I wasn’t aware that someone was obliged to comment on lots of threads for my comments on one thread to be taken seriously. Which is a rather weird reversal of the principle we’re arguing about here, the individual RM compared to their other polls.
Firstly, fuck off, you don’t get to say how and why I spend time online.
Secondly, I’m not a scholar of Lurgeeology. I don’t go looking for your posts, you just appear in front of me in some interesting conversations and I follow them. More of a committed Sunday reader than a scholar. I do read alot of posts here though, and am unlikely to remember specific conversations with specific people unless I know them or the conversations stand out in some way.
Thirdly, learn how to link properly 😉 (no, I’m not going to trawl through those three threads to see what you mean).
Fourthly, my comment at 11.25am was just a general response to your postings. You appear to be on the left, but you mostly are on a downer about things that others here are excited about. I haven’t figured you out yet. It’s not a problem, just a curiosity.
Lastly, not not leastly, why not answer my question at 11.12am?
If you’d cared to think a little bit before you started screeching ill considered abuse, you might have worked out I was addressing CV, who professed to find my current behaviour ‘interesting’ because ‘He’s never done it before.’ That suggests a rather unsettling knowledge of my posting history; or perhaps someone talking out of his hat. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which, though sadly neither is very complimentary to CV.
As for answering your question, I did – see my reply below from 2.46. Swings are fine. They happen. they have to happen. But swings of 10 points in 6 weeks are suspect.
[lprent: anyone can see your posting history. Typing @author lurgee in the search would do it. You can fine tune it with advanced options…. ]
I did think about it, but couldn’t tell. And no, I can’t read your mind. If you want people to know who you are talking to, address the comment to that person (esp once the numbered replies run out).
Likewise 2.46. How was I to know you were replying to me? (you comment didn’t appear to be answer to the question I asked. Still doesn’t. You post an opinion but don’t explain it).
“screeching ill considered abuse” – and lurgee gets a special commendation from the judges for applying a gendered tone argument on the basis of absolutely fucking nothing.
Exactly, QoT. Somehow intimidation isn’t “political” so it is not relevant, or it’s “political”, so it’s not relevant.
That’s how I found the old threads linked above. I don’t pretend to have immediate to hand knowledge of Things Lurgee Has Posted About.
Though CV obviously doesn’t either, and didn’t bother to check, because it would be pretty obvious I have posted on polling and related issues in the past. So just talking big about something and hoping not to be called on it. A shame, really. I quite liked the idea of CV cataloguing all my posts, printing them out and using them to paper a secret room with a weird little shrine dedicated to me.
This seems to be the thread for stalkers, after all.
I suggest you’re the one applying the tone to it.
‘Screeching’ refers to any sharp, loud, unpleasant noise. Wind can screech. Brakes can screech. Tyres can screech. Cats can screech. Women can screech and even big manly men can screech. It’s an onomatopoeic word, echoing the sound it makes.
You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
And who, pray, is being intimidating?
Variation of 10 points in 6 weeks suggests either John Key actually sacrificed a child live on TV, intoning, “This represents the future of New Zealand if I win in 2013,” or the polling company really have to have a look at their methodology.
“Roy Morgan polls vary so much it is hard to take them seriously”.
Thanks Lurgee for that pearler. So Lurgee, I take it you think what Bunji says is a load of horse shit ? –
Bunji – “Fresh from being the most accurate at the Aussie election (as they frequently are here too), they’ve got their latest NZ poll out”.
Frankly Lurgee all the time now I find myself wondering if Lurgee is actually Fran, or John, or Audrey. You’ve even had a couple of moments when I’ve had to consider Gower and Garner. Hell !
I think the bit where Benjii said, “But one poll should not a story make. Grab a pinch of salt with every one.” is pretty much spot on.
You seem really agitated at the poll results mate. What’s the problem? The latest RM simply fits the range that both Labour and National have been travelling in for a year now.
I’m the one being calm. Everyone else is agitated. I’m posting lots because lots of people are replying, and most of them are behaving like idiots.
So Lurgee @ 9.3.1 – you recant your frantic out there comment – “Roy Morgan polls vary so much it is hard to take them seriously” ?
It’s a matter of this…..”if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck……”.
OK ducky ?
What’s frantic about it? A poll showing a 10% variation in 6 weeks varies quite a lot, and it is hard to take them seriously. If the next truckload of RMs show the same figures as the current one, it might help, but right now it is as doubtful as the 51% claimed for National 6 weeks ago.
Funny how a lot of people here only take RM seriously when it looks good for Labour and shit all over it the rest of the time.
Not me. I take the average of the last three RM’s seriously all of the time. That is a sample size of 2400 taken over a 6 week period. Irons out the spikes and beats the crap out of those suckarse polls of less than a thousand taken every 6-8 weeks.
It will still be labour in government Lurgee
I said that was quite a possible result, up thread – “it is back to coin toss territory.” But given the complexity of the political situation (Winston or no Winston? Mana on 1, 2 or 3? Maori Party on 5,4,3,2,1 or 0?) if the numbers are suspect,t hey are almost useless.
The numbers are what they are lurgee. National is on notice as voters start moving to “undecided”. Labour is performing as it has for the last year. The Greens have climbed 1% to 2%.
Hilarious, should National sink to what i would consider it’s traditional core support, 40%, even NZFirst will not be able to save them,
That little scenario deserves a rather large LOLZ…
Winston might be a siginificant player for either the left or right. But the real question is whether he will be in pariament at all. 4.9% means nothing, 5% perhaps everything.
Actually, 4.9% means a lot.
All wasted votes influence the parliament seat makeup to the benefit of the largest party/bloc.
I ran some scenarios a few months ago where NZFirst getting 5% meant Labour/Greens together had something like 57-58 seats and would need Mana/MP/NZFirst to govern, but if Winston got 4.9% of the vote, Labour/Greens ended up with 62-63 seats by themselves, with Mana and MP merely “sitting at the table” as Pita was so delighted in repeating.
Obviosuly. But 4.9% means nothing for Winston. The poor wee mite will have to do without his baubles of office. 5% might mean a truckload of them.
If RM is suddenly accurate, NZF was at 6% in the latest
Bearing in mind that the Morgan poll usually underestimates NZF compared to every election, then you could be looking at 8%…
I have been listening to napolean xiv
”And now He’s spinning spinning spinning”, can’t quite get you head around the fact that this is a discussion about a specific Roy Morgan Poll,
Oh that’s right you and Blubber-boy think it was taken using ‘flawed methodology’ what you cannot say tho is exactly what the ‘flaws’ in the ‘methodology’ are…
It is a discussion of a specific RM poll. And I pointed out you can’t take them too seriously because other, recent individual polls have shown totally different results.
I can’t say what the flaws in RM’s methodology are – though I did make a few general suggestions – but the fact they show such wild swings suggests there is something not quite right about it.
So you and Blubber-boy both claim the Roy Morgan has ‘flawed methodology’ but then cannot back up the allegation with an iota of fact and barely a squeal of inuendo,
They have a phrase which describes such behavior, uuum i cannot for the life of me remember it,
Being full of shit is close tho, the f**king pair of you…
They produced a poll 6 weeks ago stating National had 51% of the vote. Today, the figure is 41%. Those are facts, and would lead to the conclusion there is too much variability in their polling for it to be reliable.
lurgee, the “margin of error” means they think the polled results represent the real population results within plus or minus of the given percentage value, but the key is that this is at 95% confidence.
This means, 1 out of 20 polls, the results will not reflect the population values by more than the stated margin of error (could be heaps more, or just 0.1% more, but more regardless).
That is all based on statistical theory, that their underlying polling methology is perfect and doesn’t have confounding factors etc. Generally RM polls have been more consistent and better at predicting general election outcomes than other pollsters, so they’re pretty good.
But my overall point here, is that even the very best polling company, doing a statistical sample, only says that 19 out of 20 of their polls can be trusted to be close to the ‘actual’ mood of the population they’re trying to measure.
I’ve put together a grid detailing the methods used by the different polling companies. I can’t actually find much info on the Roy Morgan poll. I’ve asked them – but they wouldn’t say whether they use the same method in NZ that they use in Australia.
There was some stuff that they used to have on the old website. Said it was random landlines and cellphones with about 800 targets. I’d presume that they do the basic demographic filtering.
The results are similar in overall trends with the other polling companies. The only real difference is that they do polls every two weeks whereas the other polls happen about every 6-8 weeks.
Like all of the polls, I don’t rely on them for exact values. I rely on them for trend. That is because it is evident when you look at the individual polls that the variance far exceeds the statistical margins of error. RM just happens to poll often enough to make that more clearly apparent.
The approach used by each company is really quite different. All accepted methods for polling, but very different. Roy Morgan appear more volatile than the others – I do a lot of time series surveys, and I hardly ever see swings as big as I’ve seen for Roy Morgan. When they do happen, there’s usually a good reason. Some events can dramatically change public sentiment very quickly (eg Orewa speech). If there has been no major event, but you see big swings, that’s just weird.
I suspect that the variations are just as big for the other polling companies. We just don’t “see” them because they do polls so infrequently that movement is expected.
There is enough variation between the polling companies to make it largely invalid to compare between ones from different companies.
Reading absolute percentages from any poll is just a mugs game even at the *predicted* margins of error which are typically in a range of ~6%…
The only useful way to read polls is to treat them as a psuedo-analogue signal without dampeners. As any engineer knows you read sample series of those. (I have been playing with touch screen driver code reasonably recently – poll numbers are easy by comparision)
“You probably need to allow for about +5% to National”
Except that National routinely get 3-5% less than the polls show when it actually comes to election time. This is largely believed to be an inherent bias in the sampling, where National voters are over-sampled.
Here’s the answer Lurgee, break cover and take your boring shit back to SlaterPorn – your last paragraph @ 9.1.1 –
“Roy Morgan’s methodology is dubious and their polls need to be treated with extreme caution. Even Cameron Slater recognised this, when RM was putting Key at over 50%. It’s just silly.”
Imagine the relief Lurgee – no more would you have to issue bullshit denunciations of ShonKey Python to keep your cover. You’d be at home !
And what do you think that ‘proves’?
Not much I guess……..except that your extraordinary and frequently angry negativity stamps you out as one who’d be much happier at SlaterPorn.
Angry negativity? Look at the comments being directed at me because I’ve dared to say, “Uh, guys, it’s probably just a rogue poll.” Look at your own comments if you want to see angry negativity. Hypocrite.
Yes Lurgee…….and as a result of some necessary correction you’ve moderated your tone somewhat in the course of morning, as your “stop picking on poor little reasonable me” crap @ 10.1.1.1 above demonstrates. Got very close to blowing your cover and confirming all suspicions earlier on there Lurg’.
Don’t reckon anyone reading what I write suspects I’m an undercover ShonKeyist, like you.
You’re hypocrisy defined Lurg’.
I don’t care what anonymous people say about me on an irrelevant corner of the internet. I was pointing out your one eyed perception of the exchange. You – and others – say all sorts because I’ve dared to challenge the groupthink conclusion that this RM poll is wonderful. Doesn’t bother me, but when you start claiming I’ve exhibited ‘angry negativity’ while ignoring all the venom and accusations and general nappy soiling by yourself and other posters, it makes you look like a fool or a hypocrite. You choose.
My position has not changed. The current RM poll is likely an outlier, just as the one six weeks ago, giving National 51% of the vote, was likely an outlier. RM tend to produce far too many polls like those two for them to be reliable.
Hahahaha Yo Pot! This is Kettle! Whaddup my Niz?
It’s good to see the Greens on 15% as a strong green voice in government has been, in my opinion, long overdue in NZ. They must still be very cautious as to how their probable coalition partner is faring and I’m sure they will be watching the Labour leadership result with some interest.
If DC wins, they face losing voters back to Labour, which will diminish their influence in government.
If GR wins, the Labour party becomes as unelectable (maybe even more so) than a DS led troop, if they don’t catch the expected (by me) drop off in red voters, then 15 – 20% means nothing and Key wins again via shonky Labour caucus politicing.
It does seem, if the trend continues, the left block could well be on to a winner in 2014.
I hope Cunliffe on his honeymoon makes space in the bed for Russel and Materia.
+100 The Allen
…..the Greens deserve to be in parliament as full coalition partners with Labour….Many Greens voters are former Labour voters and they want to see Labour strong….but without giving their vote to Labour.
Labour’s responsibility with Cunliffe as Leader is to woo back the marginalized 800,000+ …..who did not vote last time!
Winnie’s responsibility is not to create trouble for the Greens.!….He is not in competition for their vote…He would be wise to angle for Minister of Foreign Affairs….where he was superb….especially in Asia and with USA!
A leaderless Labour under play nice rules is the most united it’s gunna get.
maybe the rules should be extended…
Perhaps there needed to be a 4th option on the leadership ballot seeing as none is doing so well.
I have little faith in these polls although I did post something on open mike about this yesterday. What I found interesting was the reaction of some Tories, wanting Abbott instead of Keys. Some of the comments are pretty colourful.
Could we be seeing the emporers clothes finally being revealed, some true blues I speak to are concerned at the level of arrogance and poor issues management being shown in the last year or so.
Skycity and those PPP’s, GCSB, asset sales, national standards, holiday highways, UFB, tiwai, chch etc they have anything to do with global economic conditions its all the NACT’s work.
Cunliffe should make a virtue about being open with the greens & establish early on how their potential coalition might look. Bugger all this wait & see till after the election, they should immediately sort out how many greens might be in cabinet offices & suchlike.
I’m guessing Labour will want to settle into their new leadership and whatever else is going to happen, and focus on that. I agree it would be good to see some committed relationship building before the election. Not sure how realistic that is. Plus there is Peters to consider.
+1 Agreed. galvanise a tight left with greens-sooner the better and fuck peters. He cannot be allowed to hold the BOP ever again. Passed his used by and time for the back paddock. Talk with the greens now rather than after the election.
In the next 12 months DC has to stay on task- hammer the asset sales as this will be the major Achilles for shonkey.he has staked so much on this so called bullsit mandate that he won’t u turn and this will be his final undoing. good job.watch for the early election…
If he calls an early election he has to do the asset sale referendum at the same time.
The Nats won’t risk that
They will attack “Labour disunity” and the “mad Greens”
Will Keys lead a party knowing it may be defeated at election time?