- Date published:
7:01 am, September 1st, 2017 - 77 comments
Categories: election 2017, jacinda ardern, labour, leadership, polls - Tags: #ChangeTheGovt, colmar brunton, election 2017, jacinda ardern, let's do this, poll
Unless you spent last night in a tent in the mountains (I wish…) you already know the news: Labour rockets ahead of National in stunning Colmar Brunton Poll result
This is Labour’s highest level of support (in this poll) since 2006, and National’s lowest since 2005. Ardern leads English as preferred PM 34% to 33%.
A month ago in this poll Labour was on 24%, now 43%. That is is the largest short-term polling shift in NZ political history (the Nats’ boost after Brash’s Orewa speech was only 17% over 3 months).
It’s only one poll and Jacinda Ardern is right to be cautious:
After the debate, both English and Ardern said the poll did not tally with their own internal polls and neither were taking it as gospel.
Ardern said the poll was “a surprise” but she was not taking anything for granted given the polls could change so quickly.
“It did surprise me. So at the moment I don’t want to rely on any one poll because ultimately there’s only one that counts, and they’re so changeable at the moment that probably both of us are going to make sure we keep campaigning hard and don’t take anything for granted.”
All true, we’re in the fight of our lives. But none the less, the psychological impact of a poll putting Labour ahead is huge. It’s a new political world in which anything is possible.
Donate to Labour.
Volunteer for Labour.
Donate to the Greens.
Volunteer for the Greens.
Join the Greens.
Go hard. Let’s do this.
#BREAKING The Labour Party has overtaken National in the party vote in a sensational new poll https://t.co/I1yln5KTNV pic.twitter.com/73G74NHbTY
— nzherald (@nzherald) August 31, 2017
Bill English after poll: I'm still the right person to lead National to victory – https://t.co/o7tt08Q41v
— nzherald (@nzherald) August 31, 2017
— New Zealand Labour (@nzlabour) August 31, 2017
No, we don’t. It’s the same vacuous, image driven world that it was before. If anything, it’s worse than before.
It’s a sad testament to how shallow our political culture is that replacing a few dour blokes with a sparkly young thing gives you a ten point boost.
Suggests that policy and ideology and even any sort of strategy beyond having an attractive front of shop is pointless.
Also, bear in mind, what comes up must come down. The media will have hatchets ready. Expect “Has Ardern’s Bubble Burst?” and “Polls Drop As Voters Face Choice” headlines at the first dip in the polls.
Good one Ad
A 37 year old woman with a nine years experience as an MP is not a; “sparkly young thing”. But you are clearly a repulsive old toad.
Odd, age and lack of appeal is often brought up when talking about National politicians.
Ardern is younger than her opponent and the leader she replaced, and generally considered to be more energetic, optimistic and charismatic than them.
What do you base her appeal on if not youth, energy and charisma? Certainly isn’t policy as there isn’t much to separate Little’s Labour from Ardern’s.
I wouldn’t disagree with any of that. What I do have a problem with is you patronisingly referring to 37year old woman (or any person) as a thing – which is literally an act of objectification. If I base her appeal on anything, it is on her caucus not obstructing her (unlike other leaders who had been resented because of their election by members & affiliates representing a loss in MP power). Also her being in a honeymoon period while the Nats PR team work up functional attack lines (the ones laboriously constructed against Little; such as “Angry Andy”, being now redundant).
This is the last example I can think of someone calling another a; “pretty thing”. He got away with it because it was clearly fictional, and even in the 1970s humorously anachronistic. In 2017 it is out of place as; “Zounds ye blaggard! Hie thee to a nunnery.”.
Oh, for Goodness sake.
I was trying to highlight the vacuity of our political culture, the way people have been attracted to Ardern like magpies to a bright shiny object. I am not commenting on her per se but on us.
We (the punters out in punter land) don’t see her as someone who is attractive because she has a well thought out collection of policies but because she has the advantage of a few zeitgeisty attributes that make her more superficially appealing than her male, pale stale opponent, and predecessor.
Or can we not use that term any more because, you know, it’s not on to compare blokes to bread?
While we’re at it, Bill English got called a rock the other day. Can’t get much more objecty than that. Did you get outraged on his behalf?
Do people often compare blokes to bread? Oh right; “stale” rhyming with male (as you did in the previous paragraph). Lots of other things than bread can go stale – cake, beer, causal objectification of a person as a; “thing”, the phrase; “for goodness sake”.
As regards English being called a rock, I find it hard to be interested enough in what Davis has to say to be offended. It seemed to be a bit of an old goal rhetorically speaking, because the metaphor has both positive and negative connotations. Not offensive, because it did have meaning beside reducing a person to an object. Similarly, I think I don’t think that you are literally; a dryskinned poisonous amphibian, just that your words are equally repulsive.
Just a quick reminder of how out of touch Bill is, he stated that housing is more affordable now than it was in 2008, you actually don’t even require any intellect at all to KNOW this is straight up BS, also Bill trying to seduce the electorate by providing unaffordable TAX cuts.
When Bill stops treating the punters like they have just come down in the last shower, he may gain some respect, but don’t see that happening any time soon.
I don’t like Hosking, but he did punch Bill in the nose last night, and Bill had no answer, except to try and portray Labour policies from his bias view point, just another failure from him.
Even Audrey Young thinks Bills doomed, 9 long years of nothing.
It is worth noting that for the first time Labour seems to have taken a definite bite out of National’s support. I suppose there must be a few Nats who – in spite of being caricatured as hateful, dim, greedy and heartless – must be willing to switch.
Perhaps they can see what some on the left are slow to recognise …
It’s good to see the pollsters are showing the real results of there polls .
As most pictures don’t lie so they have to show thee realty of what the public think.
Do you really, truly think polling companies would jeopardise their reputations falsifying results?
And if you do believe that, why have they suddenly stopped?
As always, everything that suits the narrative is true, everything that doesn’t is false.
Will the Public Service get in behind a struggling National Party in its time of need? Come on TVNZ, RNZ you can do it!
Of course I fully expect all the media stories about how Bill is not fit to lead and how he should step down after this disastrous poll result. Yea right. If this was a left leader the knives would be sharpened and they would be baying for blood.
There’ll be some questions but you’re right, it won’t be a full court press like with Little and Turei.
Does Judith Collins have laryngitis?
Judith’s just doing what Rob Muldoon did when Marshall was standing for election…stay out of the public eye as much as possible, while cultivating support for her leadership in the coup that will come when Bill loses.
Yes. Unless Barclay. Or something.
haven’t heard of any link between Judith and that ‘alleged’ affair…..which would likely work to her advantage….unless you’ve heard something I haven’t??
Feeling a little crushed perhaps
“Judy in the sky”
The right wing ACTish wing of National will turn on English if he loses, like they did in 2002. They’ll probably turn on him anyway, if he does win; they might just wait a little bit longer. The media will follow their lead. They like a good knifing.
Little’s Labour Party created the message for which Jacinda is the messianic messenger- The Tories have been caught in a perfect Storm and stranded on a reef of their own deceptions
Yes you’re right of course Lurgee. Nothing has changed indeed it may even be worse, as you say , without saying how. But anyway this business of Labour on 43 and National on 41. No no no…… nothing afoot.
Excellent spotting there Lurgee ! In fact I agree with you so much Lurgee that for myself I’m just not prepared to accept an outcome of a bright young thing over a few dour blokes. I mean that’s all it’s about really, as you perspicaciously identify.
If it isn’t Ardern’s youth, energy and optimism driving the poll surge, what is it?
What awesome policy have they released that has brought about this change?
Crikey, I know how Denis Healey felt now!
Yay Paula Bennet for PM!
Come on now Xanthe….thats just too distatesful a thought this morning
Ah, like me you must have been won over by this little bit of puff
favourite quote…”After eight years, my tree now has lemons on it.”
Bennett another one like Collins lying low getting ready for a takeover from Bill should he lose the Election?
Remember Bill is a List MP so can just step down and out.
unzip it sweetie
Paula/Jacinda,-“Battle of the Babes”
Sweetie Vs Sweaty
Barry Soper…..possibly fighting to influence his ongoing relevance past 23/9/17 perhaps?
National’s only hope now is a populace-frightening disaster; earthquake or terrorist attack, real or imagined. Even something in Australia would do the trick.
Edit: just seen xanthe’s comment above – not that disastrous, pleeeease!
Really the poll everyone should be talking about is Lab/Gr 48 Nats 41.
That is certainly the number that Winston Peters will be looking at.
I expect Winston to take a distinct shift left in who becomes the target of his attacks.
His sole interest in the election is to see that neither major party can form a Government without his support. That is why he has been going so hard at National. He was having to cater for the quite likely outcome, as of a couple of weeks ago, that the Greens will not be in the next Parliament and that National, on as little as 44% could have formed a coalition Government without him.
Now he will realise that, in the unlikely situation that the Green Party get back, Labour might be able to dispense with New Zealand First.
He has never been someone to ignore unpleasant, for him, news.
He will, in my opinion go into an attack mode against both Labour and the Green Party. If he can ensure that the Green Party are knocked out of the house, and hold the Labour vote to a similar number to National he will remain the King maker, and can guarantee his own access to the baubles of office. He won’t be taking any risks on the Green Party sneaking back in and he really won’t want Labour getting any stronger.
Do you think that sounds cynical? Not really. It simply recognises that this is the way that Winston plays the game. He really doesn’t care who runs the country as long as he can enjoy the spoils.
It is good that Ardern is not relying too heavily on this poll. In fact, there was a statement she made on becoming Labour leader that impressed me (though I couldn’t find a link on a quick google), something on the lines of; “votes belong to the voters, and political parties shouldn’t take them for granted”.
Anyway, the psychological impact of this poll is greater than its statistical significance. The results aren’t really any different to the; CB poll conducted 12-16 August, though they certainly are from that of the; 22-27 July CB (assuming a 3.3 % margin of error).
The OP states; “A month ago in this poll Labour was on 24%, now 43%. That is is the largest short-term polling shift in NZ political history”, which I think means the story is more in; polls being as much tools to manipulate reality as much as reflect it , than in the reversal of Labour’s fortunes.
This is the first countrywide poll of the election season (writ day was the 23rd of August). Despite this being good news for those opposed to the current regime, I think it provides more evidence of how polling distracts from reporting of; policy, and public interactions by politicians, in the media. Thus reinforcing the need for a moratorium on the publication of polling by any media (even if “leaked”), during the election period.
he he bills had his finger in the dyke since key left , now the dams burst and a landslide is sweeping him away
Rodney Hide picks Labour to win the election..
Hey – top story on the Guardian (International edition) website:
Horizon Poll just out:
“Jacinda Ardern has a 6% lead over Bill English as preferred Prime Minister among definite voters.
Among the 860 adult respondents who are both registered to vote and 100% likely to vote, Ardern leads English by 43% to 37%.
Some people wonder if Polls lead voters rather than follow voters. It was said that 24% for Labour painted them as loosers so people would vote accordingly.
But if that is so a high poll for Labour could have a an effect in the positive way. “Wow! Winners lets join ’em!” Reckon?
There is truth in that ianmac. Just shows how shallow NZer’s are.
The idea that Polls are self-fulfilling / natural for people to back winners / voters rally to apparent majority opinion is usually called = the ‘bandwagon’ thesis / effect in political science.
Just one of a number of rival theories on the influence of opinion polls. The polar opposite is the ‘underdog’ effect. There’s also, of course, the argument that poll results can encourage strategic voting.
Haven’t heard from Josie Pagani or Phil Quinn for a while .
They’ll be in their cave working out how best to undermine Ardern and the rise of Labour.
labour need to put Helen Clark and her” no regrets “back in the box if they want to retain influence in the maori seats.
Dame Turia, who features in several billboards, said: “I felt really sad when I heard Helen Clarke say about a month ago that if she could confiscate the foreshore and seabed again from Maori, she would take the same action again.
“So let’s not forget there are still people of influence in the Labour Party who thought nothing of doing this to our people, despite 45,000 people marching against it.
Pagani was on morning report, saying nice things about Ardern. Bill Ralston was doing the same for Bill English.
Audio here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201856917/who-won-first-round-josie-pagani-bill-ralston-discuss
Ralston notable tried to sell the idea that you should vote Labour or National as it was now a clear two horse race, a fairly obviousl attempt to pry votes from the Greens and push them under 5%.
Nothing ‘new’ under the Liberal sun. But that aside…
know what likely happens with those poll numbers if they are in line with Sept 23? (Lab 43, NZF 8)
Ardern phones Shaw as promised. The conversation is kinda short. It goes something like – “Yeah….nah”
She much more than hinted as such at the beginning of that debate last night, and has form (as does the party) when it comes to throwing green things under buses.
Anyway. NZ Labour will lead the next government. There will be a period of blinkered rejoicing among tribal members and then….well, soon enough it ends in tears.
Remember what happened to Peters when he strongly implied that he would go with Labour and then went with National? Lots of seriously pissed off LW voters if Ardern chose Peters over Greens if she didn’t have to.
But yeah, party vote Green still needs to happen majorly to get any kind of progressive govt.
The Greens, should they get back into Parliament, are owed nothing.
Nor is any party.
The Greens campaign in this contest has been shit.
If they are invited to form a government, Ardern, should she be in that position, has made it clear that she will honour her Party’s commitments to the Greens.
A wise Green candidate right now will be worrying less about what cabinet position they might get in the future government, and more on their very political survival.
The track record of Labour is that they tend to change things.
Tears are expected.
Except there is the MoU. So unless the Greens don’t make it into parliament, or unless the numbers prevent Labour from doing so, there is an agreement that Labour and the Greens will form a govt together. That’s the whole point (that some seem to have missed)
This is been a consistent message for the past year, it was an intentional strategy, and it has been communicated openly to the electorate. If instead Labour chose NZF over the Greens when they didn’t have to there would be hell to pay.
I think what you are saying is that you are ok with a L/NZF govt. But lots of people on the left, most I would guess, want a progressive govt instead and that will only happen with the Greens in there.
“Ardern, should she be in that position, has made it clear that she will honour her party’s commitments to the Greens.”
Just learn to read Weka.
What I am ok with is a Labour-led government.
Consistent indications are that, should a Labour-led government form, the minor parties will have a minor role because of how they have performed. Unless there is a very unlikely late break for them.
A Labour-led government will be a progressive government. That’s according to the leader and to their policies.
The rest is up to Green supporters’ responsibility, not anyone else’s.
Working together to “change the government” is not the same thing as working together to “be the government”.
And the MoU states as it’s “purpose” as being merely –
“…to work cooperatively to change the government at the 2017 election”
That’s simply an intention to work together to ensure the National party falls short and definitely doesn’t preclude a sympathy/thankyou card being flung into the post.
There is no sympathy in elections.
From the MoU,
lt is our intent to build on this agreement so as to offer New Zealanders the basis of a stable, credible and progressive alternative government at the 2017 General Election.
By changing the government, they not simply talking about getting rid of National. They’re also talking about a L/G coalition. That’s the point of the MoU, and it’s why Ardern has been stating this recently.
I guess you could try and argue that L/NZF offers a stable, credible and progressive govt, but you’d be hard pressed, and you’d still miss the spirit of the MoU.
The MoU doesn’t imply ‘merely’, and it’s better to read the whole thing and take it in the context of the actual relationship between the two parties and what they themselves say about it.
I think the thing that many are missing is that the policies of the Labour Party and the Green Party are very similar in many respects and that this is the reason that the Green Party is the preferred coalition party for Labour and is also the reason they signed the MOU in the first place.
It also should be noted that James Shaw and Jacinda Ardern have known each other for over a decade, and that James and Grant Robertson are good friends.
Agreed. It’s the relationship between the two parties that is often missed I think. Understandable in an environment where that isn’t valued. Which isn’t to say that Labour won’t do what they need to to form a stable govt, but I don’t see them trashing the relationship either.
I did read the entire doc.
And the document is about campaigning more effectively against an incumbent government, not about building or cementing a specific coalition that will constitute the replacement government.
The room exists for NZ Labour to throw the Green Party under a bus, and if the numbers for NZF + NZ Labour add up to government and Peters states he will not work in a government that includes the Greens, then the Greens are on the tarmac.
The MoU is about relationship. I haven’t said it’s about cementing a specific coalition, they didn’t do that for obvious reasons (they can’t predict the result, they wanted the freedom to campaign independently).
“The room exists for NZ Labour to throw the Green Party under a bus, and if the numbers for NZF + NZ Labour add up to government and Peters states he will not work in a government that includes the Greens, then the Greens are on the tarmac.”
Or, Labour work with the parties involved and for a progressive govt. If you’re suggesting that Peters is capable of blackmailing them, that’a a given. It’s not inevitable though.
She stated that Labour had an MOU with the Greens and that she would stand by it, why do you read crap into it that isn’t there?
What Weka say’s about NZF is true, they can’t trusted, and not everyone has a very short memory.
I’m still confident that the Greens can lift back to their long term avg of 8%, still time to achieve that, just remain positive!!
Where does it say in the MoU that the government will be comprised of the Green Party and NZ Labour? There is nothing to that effect within the document.
Ardern will honour the MoU.
I’ve just commented up thread. It’s clear in the document that that is what Labour and the Greens want and intend, but obviously they can’t preempt the voters or election result. But both parties have consistently acted as if this is what the agreement is about.
I think the Green Party have treated the MOU as an agreement that will lead to a Labour-Green government more than Labour. I also seem to recall some talk at the time of the MOU, that it was an agreement hurriedly forged by the left wings of both Labour and the GP.
In her talk last night, I’m pretty sure Turei said she worked on the MOU.
With the change in leadership for both parties, I suspect there’s been some re-assessment of what will happen between Labour and the GP after the election – especially by Team Ardern.
I suspect that Team Ardern recognise the need to continue with the MOU up til the election, but after that, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The only solution is too achieve a strong vote for the GP, and thus a significant number of GP MPs in the coming term.
“The only solution is too achieve a strong vote for the GP, and thus a significant number of GP MPs in the coming term.”
Yes, and we’ve got 23 days to get this message out there. Committed LW voters in particular need to pay attention. It’s no longer a National vs Labour election, it’s a progressive vs centrist one and that to get a progressive govt some of them will have to vote Green.
The MOU was developed over a year and was not hurriedly put together at all. It was something that had wide support from members of the Labour Party for a very long time. Both the leaders of the Green Party took part in the discussions with Andrew Little and various front bench Labour MPs over many months.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Team Ardern” but I disagree strongly with the suggestion that Jacinda does not prefer a coalition with the Green Party over NZF.
However, I do agree that having a strong Green Party is essential to having a progressive, left wing government. There are some very good candidates on the Green Party list who will make excellent government MPs.
My memory is that the MOU was suddenly rushed out in public, without preparing the media. It may have been worked on for a while, but the publishing of it seemed like the PR preparation had been hastily thrown together for some reason.
Team Ardern includes a strong role being played by Grant Robertson. He is part of the right wing faction in Labour that strongly resisted members getting a vote on the leader. That faction consistently white anted to the media against other leaders like David Cunliffe. That, and Ardern’s haste in distancing herself from Turei, mean I am suspicious of where Team Ardern are coming from.
I do not think all of the Labour (or all of the GP for that matter) are of a like mind. And judging by some comments on TS from some LP supporters, there are some LP people who would prefer a Labour-NZF coalition to a Labour-GP one.
Ardern has not been leader long enough to build up trust. And in the last Labour-led government, they tended to shut the GP out of forming an alliance.
Grant Robertson and James Shaw are close personal friends – they share many values. There are undoubtably members of the Labour Party and some Labour MPS who would prefer a coalition with NZF – Grant Robertson is not one of them. I am not a big fan of Robertson – he is politically too cautious for my liking – but I think your assessment of his political ideology is wrong. He is definitely not part of the right wing of the Labour Party.
I also think you do a disservice to Ardern. She is intelligent and politically savvy. She is not some puppet being manipulated by rightwing factions within her party.That said, she does have to juggle the various factions to keep the party united. The Greens are in exactly the same position re left and right factions – hence the resignations of Clendon and Graham.
3 loosely-defined factions – Left / Right / Careerist
Robertson generally seen as de-facto leader of the Careerists (alternative name Soft Left – close to Helen Clark)
Ah. Yes. thanks, swordfish. I’ve seen that 3 part division before.
Ultimately, I think the careerists in Labour tend to be pulled rightwards. It would take a strong left wing flax roots movement to pull them leftwards.
At the moment political careerists seem to be focused on gaining support from mainstream media. And that restricts the limits of left wing politics when in government.
I go on past record, and from what I’ve read in various places.
I have yet to make up my mind about Ardern – but do see her as one of the “careerists” as mentioned by swordfish.
Ardern is an unknown quantity, and I suspect, to start with, she was getting strong guidance from Robertson and maybe others.
And technocrats, or careerists, seem to me not what is needed right now. The short term compromises can lead to the centre of NZ politics being continually dragged rightwards over time.
I will wait to see how Ardern develops as leader in her own right.
In the meantime, and based on the record of compromises made by Clark’s government, I’m not holding my breath for a strong left wing government led by Ardern.
It doesn’t, but it’s a MoU, and to imply that Labour would renege on it is a false statement, Jacinda actually said that if elected she would contact the Greens first to create a coalition, I don’t think she’s trying to hide anything.
I really believe that the Greens are the preferred partner for Labour, there policies cross over more than any other party, I know your skeptical about the Labour, but I think Ardren brings a lot of transparency to the movement, she is GENUINE, and that’s why she has lifted the party and gained the support of so many potential voters, politicians like Key and English and even Tops man have eroded the trust of the people, Jacinda is now a bright light in all that darkness.
Just remember, no political party will satisfy all the people all of the time, but one that strives towards there agenda, and are fair and honest will get my vote every time.
I’m not saying NZ Labour will renege.
Yes, Ardern said she’d contact the Greens first. But she did not say that would be in order to form a coalition with them.
Housing is the issue that goes right to the heart of this election campaign. The public have lost trust with National due to denial of this real problem. They are sick of the lies and spin. This lack of credibility and trust impacts on all of National’s policies. A tipping point has been reached.
The voters can see in Jacinda a talented politician who passes the basic competence test and who stands for generational change, while Bill English stands for last generation thinking.
Bill on housing is still defending his thinking. There is no acknowledgement that what the country is doing on housing is not working. He is a old-school, conservative, status quo guy and that is not what NZ needs. Bill’s housing story doesn’t add up -it doesn’t make sense. Frankly it is pathetic.
Bill English claimed in the leaders debate that NZ would build 200,000 houses in the next 6 years and conveyed a message that there is nothing to worry about, that the housing crisis has got better under National. Mike Hoskings rightly pulled him up on the fact NZ is not building enough to house NZ’s population growth.
But Mike didn’t state it in the most damaging way. Which is that the net increase in housing stock is even less than the consenting rate, which already is not enough to house population growth.
To quote CoreLogic;
“Our own analysis has shown that whilst there were roughly 10,000 dwelling consents in Auckland in 2016 (and 9,000 in 2015), the net increase in stock was only 6,000. A key contributor to this difference is the necessary reality of urban renewal which requires a property, or properties, to be demolished in order to build more multi-unit properties…”
Given Auckland’s average housing occupancy rate of 3.0 people per household, a net increase of 6,000 residential dwellings will only house 18,000 people. Yet Auckland is growing by 45,000 to 50,000 people a year.
It is this fact that is driving homelessness and overcrowding in Auckland, with all its awful social and economic consequences, such as third world poor housing childhood illnesses that the NZ Herald reported on a couple of days ago.
National and Bill English do not have the answers. Bill English is not a policy genius. He is in denial. John Key threw him a hospital pass when he gave up the Prime Ministership and for a second time Bill will lead National into defeat.
NB: I also have some other charts and facts on Auckland’s housing boom myth in the following article.
Yeah, and the most ridiculous thing he stated was that housing is more affordable now than it was in 2008, what dimension of reality is he living in?