Labour landslide – media roundup

Written By: - Date published: 6:12 am, December 4th, 2016 - 169 comments
Categories: brand key, by-election, journalism, labour, leadership, newspapers - Tags: , , , ,

Update: As of 11am not a single story on Mt Roskill appears on the online front pages of either The Herald or Stuff. What a surprise!


The Mt Roskill by election was a huge win for Michael Wood, for Andrew Little, and for Labour. Here’s some of the media reaction. Audrey Young is particularly forthright:

mt-roskill-win-youngThe Mt Roskill byelection victory is Andrew Little’s victory.

The Labour leader has described the win as “a bloody nose for National”. It is more like a bloody nose, a black eye and broken jaw.

National was comprehensively thrashed in a fight that had the potential to run closer, given that National polled 2189 votes higher than Labour in the party vote two years ago.

John Key campaigned just as hard, if not harder in the electorate, because an upset result would have destabilised Little’s leadership at a critical time in the election cycle.

Key campaigned for seven days in the electorate, between earthquake management and international sumiteering in Peru. Andrew Little was there for six days.

The Key “brand” is well stuffed now.

Credible polling still puts Labour in with a chance in a centre-left bloc to lead the next Government but there has been nothing in Little repertoire until now that says “winner”.

An important point which much of the “opinion” pile-on on the last week or so has conveniently ignored.

Other coverage – catch it before it disappears from front pages (you’re already too late, of course):

Mt Roskill slam dunk a win for Little as well
Labour’s Michael Wood sweeps Mt Roskill by-election
Labour’s Michael Wood wins Mt Roskill in a landslide
Mt Roskill by-election results
Labour’s Michael Wood wins Mt Roskill by-election
Labour trounces National in Mt Roskill by-election
Mt Roskill win comes with Labour pledge to reopen closed police bases around the country

Just in passing, credit to the only journalist who called it in advance, The Spinoff’s Simon Wilson:
NZ’s feeblest John Key parrot is on the brink of a shellacking in Mt Roskill

And from the Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Dovil/status/804967587884900352

169 comments on “Labour landslide – media roundup”

  1. Paul 1

    6.30 A.M.
    Stuff’s top stories
    1. NZ’s biggest bubbles You can’t talk about New Zealand’s property boom without first looking at what has happened in Auckland.

    2. Nine dead in warehouse

    3. Mt Roskill by election result.

    6.30 A.M.
    NZ Herald’s top stories

    1.Man awarded $20,000 after judge finds flaws in police investigation, lawyer to file false rape complaint against girlfriend.

    2. England complete Wallabies whitewash

    3. Who’s spying on Kim Dotcom now?

    4. Mt Roskill by election result.

    • dukeofurl 1.1

      The online headlines order are connected to the amount of clicks they get, not their importance.

    • Gabby 1.2

      Claire Trevor’s busy writing a piece about Little endorsing domestic violence with his bloody nose comments, and how it shows he is simultaneously a bully and an ineffectual weakling.

    • mosa 1.3

      Hey Paul this win for Labour actually shows how irrelevant the media is.

      Mt Roskill people came out and voted regardless and wanted to make their vote count.

      A lot of people are doing it hard and that is something that no matter all the spin and brand Key can hide from the reality of life for a lot of kiwis.

      It also shows that these tactics of undermining the opposition in this case Michael Wood and his campaign failed.

      • Paul 1.3.1

        I agree.
        The media is now known to be a shill for the elite.

      • Richard McGrath 1.3.2

        “Mt Roskill people came out and voted regardless and wanted to make their vote count.”

        Er, no. The result was:

        Wood 24%
        Parmar 10%
        None of the above 64%

  2. Ad 2

    Best response is a win.

    Onwards and upwards Labour.

  3. save nz 3

    I also think there were two main reason’s for his victory. One was his slogan and profile.

    He’s Local.

    No 2 was Labour made a fantastic effort in this by-election to win it. They warned voters what could happen if he didn’t win it and Natz got a clear majority. Obviously worked!

    Well done to Michael Wood, Mt Roskill, Labour and everyone else that supported them.

    P.S Just shows that it was not right neoliberal policy from Phil Goff that was getting the victory – now there is the new improved labour, new blood from Labour roots like Michael Woods and their new policy direction to the centre (without neoliberalism) and Andrew Little’s clear hard working ethic and honesty and unity, leading Labour.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

      Obviously worked!

      I don’t want to rain on the parade, just that this outcome can just as easily be explained by National voters staying home.

      It’s a good result for Labour and a bad result for National, either way.

      • Stunned mullet 3.1.1

        I don’t think it was just the nat voters that stayed home -the turnout for council and electorate elections in Auckland suggests a large part of the voting public see no value in voting which is a concern whichever side of politics you’re on.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1

          And yet Simon Lusk – and his vote suppression strategy – is still employed by candidates who are nonetheless selected by the National Party.

      • Nick 3.1.2

        Thats your opinion Oab, your wild guess…..my wild guess is that natz are on their way out and this a strong indication of the mood changing and Labour Greens NZF will storm home next year…..and about bloody time….that sleaze ball shonkey should piss off

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1

          You are mistaken: it isn’t my opinion it’s just another possible explanation. I made that perfectly clear in my comment.

          So you’re saying “job done, next election’s in the bag”, and I’m saying there’s more hard work to do: that’s my opinion.

        • Enough is Enough 3.1.2.2

          If only it was that easy Nick.

          Michael was always going to win this election. So from a National supporters perspective what is the motivation for heading to the local hall to vote?

          Unlike the general election where every vote counts towards dividing up the seats in parliament, in a bi-election like this National supporters had no reason to vote as they were always going to lose,

          This was a good result but we will have to work for every vote next year. We need to be desperate and fight for the well being of our great nation. Don’t get arrogant and think this result is an indication that Labour Greens “will storm home next year”

          • Incognito 3.1.2.2.1

            So from a National supporters perspective what is the motivation for heading to the local hall to vote?

            Why do you think John Key campaigned hard in Mt Roskill without making it appear too obvious?

            Do you think he was campaigning for an outright win only by Dr Parmjeet Parmar?

            Or do you think it is possible that National was (also) campaigning to eat into Phil Goff’s previous huge margin over the same National candidate in 2014? A reduced margin would have been a “bloody nose” for Labour and for Andrew Little in particular – Key said as much.

            • Enough is Enough 3.1.2.2.1.1

              Yes – Agreed

              And National has a massive well resoursed election machine and this result will have removed any complacency they may have had.

              This will scare them and motivate them.

              They got destoyed in this battle but the war is well and truly not won yet by the Left

              • Incognito

                Agreed – it is very hard to effectively counter “tax cuts” but National has the advantage, to a point.

                • Enough is Enough

                  Tax cuts is very easy to counter. If we cant counter that we dont deserve to be in governmenet.

                  What I was talking about though is the deep pockets the party has. They have rich memebers and donors so have the resourses to reach into every home in New Zealand and spin their bullshit.

                  That is what we are up against.

                  • Incognito

                    Sadly, you are 100% correct about National’s war chest and the media puppets-on-a-string doing the spinning for the party.

        • We are nowhere near in “storming home” territory. The last two polls both have the Nats’ average high enough to just pull away with a 61-seat government (without NZF) if there aren’t any polling errors that work out in the Left’s favour, and this is after the first ten months of the year had a trend consistently towards Labour and the Greens. This is an election that is in a virtual statistical tie between a National + ACT + UF government, NZF deciding the election, and a Labour-Greens government with flexibility to choose its crossbench partners. (Although polling needs to go back to the earlier trend for that last one to be a serious possibility- if this bump for National isn’t temporary or Labour doesn’t have a good plan to turn things around, that dream may be dead, as I don’t see the Greens pulling an 18% result out of their hat just yet)

          As most governments get less popular over time rather than more, you generally want to go into your first term of government with a coalition that allows you multiple options of how to pass bills. If Labour just beats out National by dint of negotiating more effectively for NZF’s support, that means they have to do a stellar job in their first term if they don’t want to be shackled to NZF for the entire sixth Labour government. And that’s assuming that the recent bump for National isn’t permanent momentum.

          Yesterday’s by-election win was an atypically good Labour candidate, part of the wave of new post-rejuvenation Labour that’s likely to be more appealing to voters, against one of the most emotionless, ineffective candidates National already has in Parliament. Sure, it was a convincing win, and it wasn’t absolutely terrible turnout for a by-election, (most bigger turnouts were in highly competitive races, this one was very unlikely for National to win) and it will create a perception of Labour as winners-in-waiting if they don’t screw it up, but it’s just as likely down to Parmar not turning out National voters in response, which isn’t something that would influence the party vote in 2017.

      • Ad 3.1.3

        And home was the best place for them.

      • Rob 3.1.4

        Who ever believes Nat voters ever stay home
        Remember they got 21% in 2002

  4. Nice win , though ,… I’d say cupcakes all round… fortified by a few stiff coffees after last nights celebrations.

  5. Brian 5

    Great result.. Congrast Michael, Labour and Mt. Roskill !!

  6. { ” P.S Just shows that it was not right neoliberal policy from Phil Goff that was getting the victory – now there is the new improved labour, new blood from Labour roots like Michael Woods and their new policy direction to the centre (without neoliberalism) and Andrew Little’s clear hard working ethic and honesty and unity, leading Labour.’ }

    Very insightful and interesting observation there, save nz….

    • wellfedweta 6.1

      “…Andrew Little’s clear hard working ethic and honesty and unity, leading Labour.’ ”

      …to polling lower than when Robertson said he could no longer stand by and do nothing. Lower than when Shearer was ditched. And, perhaps unbelievably, lower than the 2014 election result.

      • Current averages suggest a likely result of between 23.6% and 29% for Labour, accounting for the margin of error.

        Once we translate that into coalitions, we’re at between 45.4% and 51.6% for National, (feel free to add .8% if you want to account for the likely overhang seat between Dunne and Seymour, who will likely both favour a National government if they get to choose) and between 45% and 51.2% for Labour/Greens/NZF together. Basically, we’re in a statistical tie for who gets to be government. The Māori Party, if they get in, is likely to tag along with whoever forms the government, and thus is pretty irrelevant to the choice. So basically, at this super early stage, we’re basically tied between NZF deciding who wins, and National winning with a little help from its friends.

        • wellfedweta 6.1.1.1

          “Once we translate that into coalitions…”

          Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s a false narrative. Labour is not going to be in a position to form a coalition with any party unless is can poll well over 30%, NZF simply won’t go with it. NZF can get much more from a 2 party coalition with National than a three party (at least) coalition with Labour. The Poll of Polls (http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/poll-of-polls) has the right v left gap opening in recent months, with National and partners holding a 2 seat advantage over Labour etc even giving the left bloc NZF.

          Little is sticking to his guns, which is admirable. But he is not getting any traction in the polls, in fact he is going backwards.

          • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.1.1

            You clearly do not understand coalition politics.

            It’s frankly completely irrelevant how large the largest party is in whether they can form a coalition. What it does determine is whether they have a strong negotiating position where they can force their junior partners to accept deals that lock them out of the decision-making process on core policy.

            If Labour gets elected with results similar to current polling, (with say, a 3-4% shift towards the Left) they’ll have to include the Greens and probably NZ First in Cabinet in a significant way, which will be a new experience for us as a country, however many nordic nations have had cabinets composed in similar ways for quite some time, and it doesn’t destabilise their government or reduce their mandate.

            I agree the trend of the coalition gap started favouring National again in late October, however not enough to make them a likely winner of the next election, so even with their current “lead” they are still in the territory of a statistical tie. (their coalition needs to be more than 3.1% ahead to clear the margin of error) I expect to see that turn around sharply with recent news, and we’ll likely soon be talking about how Labour appear to be ahead but either have to rely on NZF, or haven’t yet cleared a statistical tie. 😉

            • wellfedweta 6.1.1.1.1.1

              I understand coalition politics very well. Labour need a commanding number to entice NZF, and they don’t have it. A multi-headed coalition with WP would collapse within months, and I doubt it would even get off the ground.

              • NZF change their apparent philosophy around what they want in a coalition partner all the time. God only knows what it’s going to be this election. I’m pretty convinced by now that it’s all retroactive justification.

                We’ve routinely had four-party and five-party coalitions in New Zealand, (some of which have been Right Wing ones) so I’m not sure why all of a sudden National fans are insisting that a three-party coalition is untenable. There are tensions between NZ First and the Greens, sure, but there is also a fair amount of agreement on economic populism, an independent New Zealand, respect for democracy, fighting poverty, and that politics should focus on bettering the lives of ordinary people.

                It’s a relationship that can be built on, unlike whatever Collins and Peters have. 😉

                • wellfedweta

                  “We’ve routinely had four-party and five-party coalitions in New Zealand,”

                  No, we haven’t. We have had Labour and National led governments with supply agreements with smaller parties. The closest we’ve had to what you claim is the NZF relationship with National and Labour, none of which included other parties in any formal coalition.

                  One this we know about Peters is he plays second fiddle to no-one. The chances of seeing NZ with Labour and the Greens in a coalition are close to zero.

                  • The government doesn’t stop being a coalition government just because the partners are very small. If you don’t have a majority of seats belonging to one party, (which again, we’ve never had since MMP) but do have agreements in place for confidence and supply, the government is a coalition. The current one is four parties in total, but only two or three needed for each piece of legislation. None of these parties are on the cross-benches, they’ve all agreed to vote confidence and supply together with National.

                    As to supply agreements- I’m not sure what definition you’ve been working off, but that IS a coalition. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government

                    The only alternative other than a single-party majority government or a coalition government is minority government. That’s where nobody technically agrees to be bound to support the government, but the government manages to pass the necessary legislation on an issue-by-issue basis with parties sitting on the cross benches or by seeking consensus with the main opposition party. Minority government hasn’t been tried in New Zealand yet.

                    If Peters is the deciding factor of the next election, he doesn’t have to play second-fiddle, no matter who he chooses to go into coalition with, as both sides will know they’ll need him. He can even drag out talks like he did last time, and he can choose based on who offers him a better deal, or who he’d like to work with more, or some other esoteric criteria he sets before the election, like that time he said he’d negotiate first with whoever won the plurality of the Party Vote.

                    • wellfedweta

                      “The government doesn’t stop being a coalition government just because the partners are very small. ”

                      The government doesn’t START being a coalition until it is one. Support agreements are not coalitions. Just ask the Greens.

  7. jpwood 7

    And to fact-check the slogan no Government has won a by-election in a seat held by an opposition party – its happened four times:
    1920 – Bay of Plenty from Liberal to Reform
    1921 – Auckland East from Liberal to Reform
    1930 – Parnell from United to Reform
    1932 – Motueka from Independent (ex United) to Reform

    • Hanswurst 7.1

      Usually when I’ve seen that claim, it’s been qualified by “since WWII”.

    • None of those have been in the modern political era, and honestly, even results from pre-MMP aren’t exactly a straightforward precedent for a by-election in this millenium. 🙂

      It’s not completely irrelevant to go back to precedents in previous political eras, but it does become a bit risky because the factors at play and even the rules of “the game” have often changed dramatically. Generally a political era lasts about 30 years, so it’s probably still reasonable to be looking at precedents from the Lange government, but further back than that is iffy.

  8. James 8

    For some reason my post did not appear on the other thread. So trying again

    Congrats to woods. He was the better candidate and campaigned a lot better than his opponent.

    He is a well deserving winner

    [some people are randomly going into spam. Happens from time to time, and comments then need to be released manually – weka]

  9. Wayne 9

    The relatively low turnout and the margin would seem to indicate that Labour voters turned out and National voters did not. The reverse of the “missing million” effect.

    No doubt there are a few reasons for that:
    1. National voters never thought the National candidate could win
    2. Some of the National candidates claims (being the only local candidate) did not stand scrutiny
    3. Michael Wood was well known through local body politics
    4. Michael Wood was seen as very good successor to Phil Goff
    5. Michael Wood ran a good tight campaign

    So perhaps not too much can be read into the result from a nationwide perspective. However it is undoubtedly a fillip for Andrew Little, just at a time when he needed it. He can go into Christmas feeling a bit happier, which is perhaps what he needs – a smile on his face.

    There will be a lot of interest in the next nationwide polls.

    • b waghorn 9.1

      Ex nat mp says we can’t read to much into win.
      No surprise there!!

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1

        …and then goes on to damn Andrew Little with faint praise and a sneer.

        • Wayne 9.1.1.1

          What sneer was I suggesting?

          Just about everything I read about Andrew Little suggests it would help if he was not so dour looking. Can’t be a bad thing to smile a little.

          • Ross 9.1.1.1.1

            So, when Little talks about the deaths of 29 miners, he should smile a little? Okay then.

          • Trey 9.1.1.1.2

            Wayne, I have run into Andrew Little a few times in various koru lounges around NZ as I travel a lot for my job. He is actually a very affable man. Well spoken, intelligent and the times I have spoken to him he has always been smiling.
            Could be that everything you read about Andrew being so dour is because of bias on behalf of the media that you get your information from.
            Another thing about him is that he is approachable unlike the ponytail puller from Parnell who even has his little gang of secret service ego boosters around him in the Koru lounge for goodness sake.
            Last time I flew to Christchurch Key even had them stationed outside the toilet while he took a dump which for someone who is supposedly so popular seems slighty over the top. I was tempted to ask them if they were waiting to wipe his bum but they were so “dour” and “unsmiling” I thought better of it

            • Wayne 9.1.1.1.2.1

              I have met Andrew Little in plenty of circumstances such as you describe, and you are correct, he is pleasantly affable.

              But that does not come through in his media appearances, which is what I was referring to, or rather the media reporting of them. At least to me, he does come across as a bit rigid in personal style on TV.

              And Ross don’t be silly. You know perfectly well I was not suggesting that.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2

      Some of the National candidates claims … did not stand scrutiny.

      Something that can be said of National Party candidates the length and breadth of the nation, from the Prime Minister up.

      However, you correctly identified the problem: scrutiny. Most of the time you don’t get caught at it, and are certainly never held to account. No personal responsibility whatsoever, etc etc.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1

        Something that can be said of National Party candidates the length and breadth of the nation, from the Prime Minister up.

        QFT

    • Pat 9.3

      “There will be a lot of interest in the next nationwide polls”

      perhaps….if only to see how further divorced from reality and irrelevant they have become.

      • AB 9.3.1

        Pat – I so wish you are right. However people said the polls were wrong in 2014 but they were depressingly accurate. Please let’s not go down this road again.
        It’s a good win but I have no doubt that many people who voted for Michael Wood yesterday will rock up at the General and party-vote National. I want to know why the hell they do that when it is acting against their own interests.

        • Pat 9.3.1.1

          “However people said the polls were wrong in 2014 but they were depressingly accurate.”

          which poll ?….they were all over the place through the entire period…a spread of over 15 points for both National and Labour…short term swings well outside MoE and huge variability between different pollsters in the same period.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2014

          I guess with such small samples and consequent variability you will hit the right split sometime.

          • AB 9.3.1.1.1

            Viewed in aggregate the polls in 2014 suggested a narrow win for Nat/Act/MP/UF and that’s what happened. There weren’t swathes of people without landlines waiting to come out and prove the pollsters wrong. The missing million stayed missing. Now I loathe the way polls are used to drive opinion rather than reflect it, and for that reason I would ban them during the campaign if not for the entire election year. But by claiming they are wrong we just look foolish when it turns out that they’re not really.

            • pat 9.3.1.1.1.1

              ” But by claiming they are wrong we just look foolish when it turns out that they’re not really.”

              No more foolish than calling a close by election that turns into a landslide…and assuming that it turns out that way….Brexit and Trump.

              the commentary (especially of late) is not on the aggregate of polls over a sustained period rather drawing baseless conclusions from individual polls as the media and commentariat delight in doing.

    • Jenny Kirk 9.4

      and maybe Wayne, National voters are just getting a bit tired of Mr Key’s lies and turnarounds (oh, and pulling of ponytails) and so didn’t go out to vote.

    • mosa 9.5

      The polls are manipulated and my prediction is they will stay the same as they have done since 2007.

      • There is no good evidence to suggest the polls are divorced from reality, either deliberately or accidentally.

        Most polls that ran near the 2014 election came within their margin of error of the actual vote.

        That’s not to say they’re perfect, or even hugely reliable, (even our best polls tend to swing one direction or another, or have the occasional rogue) but they are useful for determining who has momentum in the campaign, and if they’re looking like a landslide victory for either side near the election, that’s usually a solid indication of who the winner is going to be, if not necessarily by how much they’ll win.

        • red-blooded 9.5.1.1

          I think we have to listen to what Matthew’s saying, here. If we only ever listen to the polls we like and keep pretending that they are inherently flawed then we’ll get the result we deserve. I, too, hate the way polls are used to drive campaigns rather than to reflect opinion, but they are, and we have to get on with it and deal with the real world.

          I used to be on the national executive of my union and I remember a particularly tough time (spread over a number of months) when the wider membership kept refusing a number of deals put in front of them and increasing their expectations with each deal rejected. We developed a saying: “The members are always right”. They fact is that a union (or a political party) has to be driven by the wider group that it serves and the people closest to the negotiating table (or government) have to listen to the messages they are sent. One way the voting public sends a message is through opinion polls. Some polls can be “bouncy”, but if there’s a trend across polls it has to be taken seriously.

          Of course, it’s hard for an opposition to cut through to the public when the news cycle is controlled by the government. Let’s just hope Labour and the Greens drive a canny campaign next year (and that we don’t have the distractions of last time getting in the way).

          • Matthew Whitehead 9.5.1.1.1

            Yeah, I should obviously mention that my belief that the polls are likely to have some basis in reality doesn’t mean I support the sort of ridiculous horse-race reporting that is being done around polls, which essentially creates a certain degree of self-fulfilling prophecy about them. You have every right to be frustrated when the only question journalists will ask Labour is “well why are you down in the polls?”

            Secondly, you should pay attention to the margin of error. Most agencies that poll in New Zealand structure their polls to have 95% confidence of a +/-3% margin of error. (ie. they poll around 1,000 people) What this means is that they expect 19 of every 20 polls to be accurate to within 3%, so potentially any differential between coalitions smaller than that is a “statistical tie” where you can’t reliably tell who’s leading even if the poll is one of the 19 good ones. Obviously any lead in a poll is a good one, but a 1% lead in a poll could actually be anywhere between a 4% lead and a 2% disadvantage if the provided margins of error are accurate.

            A smart averaging system generally deals with the likelihood of that 5% error rate showing up as a rogue poll, by giving some weight to other polls, and possibly adjusting for dramatic shifts from the trend. Looking at averages of all New Zealand polls is a virtual necessity at this stage, as only two of them are running with any degree of regularity. Of the two, the Roy Morgan is actually the more reliable one. (Colmar Brunton, despite giving less “up and down” results, is taken less often, provides less open information, and seems to skew consistently pro-national. You actually expect a certain amount of up and down in real polling)

            We are currently, based on my beta poll averaging, (in which I’m doing some cool things like coming up with a system to determine if a poll is rogue, rating various polling agencies for how reliable they are based on objective metrics, and the usual time-based weightings in the averages) in a statistical tie between a National government and a scenario where New Zealand First holds the balance of power. (which would probably mean a Lab/Grn/NZF government, but maybe not) Before the last couple of months we were in a scenario where NZF was very likely to hold the balance of power, ie. they were out of the range of a statistical tie.

            The other thing to understand about the accuracy of polls is that it’s also a sliding scale of accuracy based on standard deviations depending on each party’s “share” of the poll. The margin of accuracy given is actually for results near 50%. That 3% shrinks a bit as the share of the party vote goes down. So right now, for a poll of 1000 people: (which is actually a little larger than average for NZ polls)
            * National’s party vote result is likely accurate to within 3-3.1% in either direction at the moment.
            * Labour’s party vote result is likely accurate to within 2.7-2.8% in either direction at the moment.
            * The Greens to within 2-2.1% currently.
            * NZ First to within about 1.7-1.8%.
            * Most smaller parties are accurate to within 0.2-0.6%.
            * And if you’re adding parties together, you should consider the accuracy based on the support for the entire coalition, not based on each party.

            As you can see, the inaccuracies start off as a relatively small compared to the share of the Party Vote for Labour and National. (so Labour, realistically, may actually be polling in the low 30s if the polls are all getting very anti-Labour samples, even with reliable polling methods, which is being off by about 10% of their support) By the time you get down to the Greens and New Zealand First, the possible variance is actually more like a sixth of their entire support base, meaning you can get a “surge” or “dissapointment” just by the polls being off by an expected amount. The Greens for instance frequently end up at the low end of their polled variances.

            Once you’re below the party vote threshold and into electorate lifeboat territory, results tend to vary by half or more of a party’s actual party vote support, making it pretty impossible to give an accurate result, as a party that’s consistently polling at 2% might just be polling too strongly and end up with 1.3%, or a party polling at 1% might suprise everyone and be polling too weakly and get 1.6% and a second seat at election time. It’s practically anyone’s game at that point.

    • Sacha 9.6

      or

      6. Voters were put off by negative campaigning from Parmar’s team and voted against her to register their disapproval – says the leader of the also-ran People’s Party: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760160

    • There’s also (7), that Parmar was as stiff as a block of wood and less interesting.

      Honestly low turnout is expected when there’s only one decent candidate.

      I agree that it’s too early to draw conclusions about the party vote, but it’s not unreasonable for Labour supporters, or voters supporting their potential coalition partners, to be heartened by this result in the short-term.

    • Rob 9.8

      Talking sh1t again Wayne
      One would think you could be a Key (I never tell Lies)
      Supporter!!

  10. Muttonbird 10

    A great win for the people of Mt Roskill. With it the issues which concern them will be heard and addressed rather than belittled and further buried.

    Government commenters are saying this is just what they expected but it is not. They expected a close race and at the very least reduced dominance by Labour in the electorate. Labour greatly strengthened and that must be very concerning to National even though they will do their best to hide that concern by claiming not too much can be read into the result.

    Two by-elections in a row which have been a train-crash for National and there must be some rumblings about the performance of their national campaign manager.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      Watch as he treats responsibility like a game of pass-the-parcel.

      • WILD KATIPO 10.1.1

        I will never forget that interview between Joyce and Grant Robertson,… that inane , loud , nervous giggle , … and that obnoxious ranting over both Robertson and the interviewer ( Lisa Owen ) ,…

        And then Northland, and now Roskill ,… poetic justice for interference in our newsmedia aka John Campbell and co and democratic balance , perhaps?

        The man failed the character test of basic courteousness and civility .

        He had it coming to him .

        • Rob 10.1.1.1

          Joyce is a total prick
          A very nasty man
          Let’s hope all reasonable people understand that

    • I think this is a great example of how we can expect Labour to perform once their careerists move on or are pushed. Wood seems like a great new MP, and I have a lot of respect for his partner, so if he has similar values to her, we can expect great things.

  11. alwyn 11

    Michael is now learning the truth about being a junior politician.
    Prior to the election you are important. and people ask for your views and listen to what you say.
    If you lose you are totally to blame and the Party hierarchy will disown you and say it was all your fault.
    If you win, and Michael won very well, the leadership will shove you into the background and take all the credit for themselves. You will find that none of it was your doing. It was all the work of the great leader. You will now be sent to the back benches and told to shut up and become invisible.
    You will, unless you are part of New Zealand First, be allowed a maiden speech but you will be required to give all the credit to the leader. If you are in New Zealand First you won’t even get that. Your party leader will take the speaking time for himself.
    From now on your only appearances in Parliament will be filling the quota of seats during the dull times and being rostered on to fill out your parties speaking time during the dog watches when there are only about 10 very junior members in the house and none of them are listening to you drone on. They will all be doing the crossword in the paper.
    Such is the life of a backbench MP.

    • Muttonbird 11.1

      Oh dear, someone is upset Andrew Little got a bit of positive press.

      • Jenny Kirk 11.1.1

        More than a little upset, I’d say, Muttonbird. Hugely upset !

      • alwyn 11.1.2

        I’m not upset in the slightest. It is just what I expected which is what I am saying in this comment. Every party operates in exactly the same way. The leader is responsible for all the triumphs. The junior people take the blame for all the failures.
        Just what do you think is unreal about that statement?

        • WILD KATIPO 11.1.2.1

          Weren’t you one of the ones who have saturated these posts about Andrew Little needing to ‘ smile more’ ?

          I could be wrong about that – but I swear all we ever heard from right wingers was how Keys so bloody shit hot and smiley as he seals off Pike River and Andrew Littles just ‘Angry Andy’ – whether you were one I cant recall…

          But why the doom and gloom? … why the dreary pessimistic outlook all of a sudden?… or is it that that sage advice is only appropriate when a right winger wins and is in govt….

          Seems to me Andrew Little was smiling plenty last night…

          • alwyn 11.1.2.1.1

            “Weren’t you one of the ones who have saturated these posts about Andrew Little needing to ‘ smile more’ ?”.
            Well no actually. But don’t let that bother you.
            “Andrew Little was smiling plenty last night”. Is that an example in the photo at the top of this post?

        • Muttonbird 11.1.2.2

          Key strapped the outcome of this election to the future of Andrew Little and I’m certain you would be braying like a donkey for Little’s head if Labour lost this seat. In light of this spectacular victory it seems a very churlish of you to deny Little’s contribution to this well run Labour team effort.

          • alwyn 11.1.2.2.1

            I’m sure you don’t mean to but you are demonstrating the truth of what I had to say.
            ” very churlish of you to deny Little’s contribution to this well run Labour team effort.’. No mention of the candidate. It was the “Great Leader” and his team who won. What would have said if the campaign had not been successful? Like any political party you would have said it was all the candidate’s fault.

            It doesn’t change the main point of my comment though. Mr King will now vanish into the darkness. If he is very good he may be allowed to stand in the background of a bunch of suitably fawning MPs while the leader announces something to the Press. Why do the politicians seem to need a lot of very highly paid MPs to stand, mute, listening to them dribble on? The more senior they are the greater the entourage.
            Michael will, however, not be heard from again until the campaign starts late next year. Such is the fate of a junior MP. They have to breath through their nose for a few years. If they don’t, and stand out like Nash does, they will be slapped down very, very hard.

        • Ad 11.1.2.3

          It’s largely up to Woods whether he fades or rises.

          Nothing is inevitable in politics.

          Plenty have risen from zero to hero. Current PM amongst them.

        • Rob 11.1.2.4

          Yeah right
          Key to minder
          I’ll take the selfie or photo op
          No there is no way I’ll go and front up to those Pike river relatives
          That would be like admitting I have empathy

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2

      So Steven Joyce is getting ready to blame Parmjeet Parmar. Thanks for that, and the rest of this interesting look into the mind of a deflated Righty.

      • alwyn 11.2.1

        “getting ready to blame Parmjeet Parmar”.
        Probably. Are you surprised?

        I am not, as you seem to be suggesting, a “Righty”. I vote for the party I think is best able to provide a good government for New Zealand. Since 1981 I have voted 5 times for Labour and 6 times for National. At the moment however there is no option. The Labour Party have gone from bad to worse to much worse.

        That is very bad for New Zealand. No Government should continue in power for long periods. Unfortunately there is, currently no competent Opposition to take the reins.

        • WILD KATIPO 11.2.1.1

          ( ‘ Unfortunately there is, currently no competent Opposition to take the reins. ‘)

          But isn’t that just what the National party spin and PR machine would have us believe ? Each and every waking day ?

          That there ‘ IS NO ALTERNATIVE ‘ ?

          Sounds a lot like the cry of the neo liberal doesn’t it , about their brand of economics as well ….

          That there ‘ IS NO ALTERNATIVE’ ….

          Doesn’t the MSM imply that every second day ?… you know … the same ones who wrote up about a fictitious donation and a bottle of wine worth $100,000 that never existed ?

          And to date , … the Labour party has never received an adequate apology from those concerned party’s who spread that news story across the nation pre election… an attempt that was obviously designed to smear the Labour party…

          And you call this sort of collusion between ( what was once considered national ) privately owned media , big business and political party’s a healthy democracy?

          And you actually vote for this obviously vested interest triangulation of party’s and believe the spin that there ‘IS NO ALTERNATIVE ‘ ?

          I call bullshit on the validity of what you claim to support , mate.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.1.1

            +1

            Can’t stomach Kiwibuild or a CGT, votes for bribery and tax havens instead.

            • alwyn 11.2.1.1.1.1

              There are perfectly good arguments for a Capital Gains Tax. They aren’t however compatible in any way with what Labour and the Green Party have claimed.
              These parties argue that a CGT will stop house price inflation. Then they also say they will exclude people’s homes from the CGT. Doing that increases the incentive to buy bigger and bigger homes. Why do you think that Sydney is full of McMansions and that the median price there is more than 12 times the median income?
              It is because the house is exempt from CGT whilst everything else gets hit and that it is also excluded from the assets that are means tested for the state pension.
              That stupidity is exactly what the Labour and Green parties want to do here.
              How mad can they get?
              If you look here you see that ALL the 5 main cities in Australia are in the top 20 in the world.
              Now please tell me how the same CGT they have in Australia is going to work if they introduce it here and bring down house prices?

              • Well , I dunno about other places , but McMansions might be a bit of a squeeze to have to build them on top of apartment buildings here in Auckland….

                Maybe they could build em down the sides and around the corners of those high rise apartments as well…

                That might help.

        • Tim 11.2.1.2

          So so salty… And to top it off lying by pretending not to be a right winger. Enjoy your loss.

          • alwyn 11.2.1.2.1

            “lying”?
            I see little reason to debate with you. I am for sensible Government and would be what is traditionally known as a Liberal voter. At the moment that clearly excludes any New Zealand Government that included Labour or the Green parties.
            Still, you know doubt, being of the Corbyn/Trump persuasion, find that upsetting to your feelings. Tough.

            • Tim 11.2.1.2.1.1

              I’d call myself a pro-establishment centrist and I support Labour in NZ. You’re either a liar or an idiot if you think National is doing enough to address housing in Auckland. Enjoy your salty salty tears!

        • Jerko 11.2.1.3

          Sounds more like the death throws of a dying Neo lib. Alwyn! You apparently have not kept up with what the Labour Party have been working on in terms of policy over the past two years. Either that or you are one of the those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo which will eventually be the downfall of The NZ that I grew up in,

    • AB 11.3

      Let’s all roll over, give up and die then. Alwyn would lke that – eternal rule by the National Party

    • Gabby 11.4

      You’d be recommending him for a shadow cabinet post then would you?

    • Michael is now learning the truth about being a junior politician.

      Oh, I think Pamjeet Parma will be learning a much harder lesson about that than Michael Wood is…

    • Sure, sometimes the boss gets a turn at the spotlight when you do your job well. I don’t think it should be so surprising that that applies to backbenchers as well as wage slaves. 😉

  12. ianmac 12

    Well done Michael and Andrew.
    Be interesting to see the revised National List and Parmar’s place on it.
    Virtually nothing in online papers now. Funny that.

  13. Sanctuary 13

    I used to think the chatterati of the establishment political press didn’t have the foggiest idea of what people in the provinces thought or how they lived.

    Now I think Toby Manhire, Clare Trivet, Tracey Watkins, Rodney Hide, Matthew Hooton, Fran O’Sullivan, Michelle Boag, Patrick Gower, John Roughan, the Herald Editorial, Paul Henry and Mike Hosking have retreated even further – they have no idea what people are thinking or doing in Auckland outside of the old tramstop suburbs that are white and well off.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.1

      IMO, they see themselves as shaping what people think and so only ever report what they think and not what others are thinking.

      • That’s certainly part of it. I think the other part is that a lot of them simply live in a bubble, classic beltway-style, and don’t give enough credence to people who live differently than they do.

        • NZJester 13.1.1.1

          They all moved out of New Zealand a long time ago and have been living on Planet Key for a while now.

      • North 13.1.2

        DTB @ 13.1…….”IMO, they see themselves as shaping what people think and so only ever report what they think and not what others are thinking.”

        You have it in one DTB. Oozing with imagined ‘savoir faire’ they are. Vainglorious pricks who see/invent a ‘story’ and rush to show how central they personally are to it. Such ludicrous airs!

  14. Muttonbird 14

    Ha. 9:57am on the morning after a massive defeat for the government and not one story about it on the Herald home page.

    • Trey 14.1

      So true Muttonbird. Not even if the politics sectionwhere Destiny Church gets a mention

    • Predictable, and insidious , isn’t it.

      I never thought Id see the day when New Zealand backed itself into this sort of anti democratic governance and propaganda .

      I had always felt secure in the subconcious assurance that those brave veterans of World War Two had fought , died and triumphed over the very same sort of stealthy political deceit we witness today in this country.

      • mosa 14.2.1

        Greed, selfishness, wealth, privilege and protecting the status quo WK are the enemies we face today.

        Complacency does not help either.

        • Jono 14.2.1.1

          So true Mosa. People are protecting there own privilege and wealth by being extremely selfish. You can see it everywhere especially on the road with those type of people pushing in front tail gating behaviors.
          The status quo is basically neo liberalism or the market economy. people in high places are making alot of money out of this system just look at the Power industry or oil industry its money for Jam. Alot of these people would not be doing quite so well without this system. This is where greed comes in. Without this we would see lower prices but more money in the pockets of people in working or middle classes. And this ties everything together.
          If we could get away from the Neo Liberal model and have a more equal society it would benefit all including those at the top as society would be more cohesive. Less greed and more equality for all.

    • mosa 14.3

      Muttonbird are you really surprised at the Herald.

      It was not a win for their sponsor so they ignore it.

      They are selective with bad news.

    • Whispering Kate 14.4

      Totally agree Muttonbird, no mention whatsoever but are you really surprised. It is time we rolled out home presses and delivered news like they once did way back in history. At least we have TS and The Daily Blog and others who try to give us another opinion other than the government of the day and their MSM media sources.. I have friends and relatives in the provinces – Taranaki and Hawkes Bay – and they are suffering from not being noticed or even considered by this Government – with Andrew’s Bill going down the toilet in the house for considering NZ businesses before foreign businesses it is just going to just make it even worse for the provinces to feel let down. A great result for Mt Roskill and may there be further good results in coming polls.

    • james 14.5

      Hate to break it to you – this is not a massive defeat for for the government.

      It is however a massive win for Little.

      The sad thing is – this actually is a massive win for Little – he needed any scrap of success.

  15. Comments from those who were on the ground would be welcome. I did a little bit and it was very revealing. Labour is still in the hearts of many including working people despite the thesis of recent weeks around the Trump and Brexit elections.

  16. mary_a 16

    Today NZH & Stuff have this news nicely tucked away out of sight, to protect the status quo, satisfying their Natz bosses!

    Congratulations Michael Wood and well done the people of Mt Roskill for seeing sense and voting in a local Labour man. Parmjeet Parmer is a nobody, coming from where? Oh yes that’s right, the back benches of government, conveniently settled there to ask the Patsy questions with the rest of the useless Natz back bench puppets!

  17. red-blooded 17

    Michael Wood and Andrew Little both did strong interviews on Q+A this morning. Little made a point of saying that listening and being sincere were more important than being “a show pony” and also rubbished the idea that Legget was some big loss for Labour, saying that he was an opportunist who was quite happy to accept ACT and Nat backing and money while running in opposition to Labour for the Wellington mayoralty and all that’s happened now is that he’s being more open about where he belongs.

    It wa also interesting to hear him talking about “left” and “right” labels as being old-fashioned and saying that he just wants a NZ that gives everyone a fair go and that it’s more important to put together a set of workable policies than it is to put a label on them. This was in response to Lisa Owen suggesting that Labour’s moved to the left with the Greens and that this space is crowded and he needs to win votes from National.

    I don’t necessarily think these labels have lost relevance, but I do see why he wants to move away from them in public debate. Labour does need to have core principals (without them a political party is just a means to grab power, and I certainly wouldn’t be giving time and support to an entirely self-serving entity). It also needs to appeal to people who don’t see themselves as left wing, though. The challenge for Little is to make it clear what differentiates about his concept of a fair society from Key’s. He’s doing a good job of focusing on significant issues. I think there’s a bit more to be done to tie these together, but there’s also time to do this.

    It’s great to see a more positive narrative beginning to emerge about the state of the Labour Party. I wonder if we’ll hear more this week from those who were writing its obituary last week?

    • Cinny 17.1

      Excellent interviews from the future PM of NZ aka Alpha Andy and our newest MP for Mt Roskill and landslide byelection winner Michael Wood on Q+A. Well done.

      Awesome interview Andrew, great work there Sir.

      https://www.tvnz.co.nz/ondemand/q-and-a/04-12-2016/series-9-episode-39

      • Good answers from Wood, and a good performance from Andrew, but way too focused on horse-race BS about polling. It’s okay to mention that they’re behind once or twice and ask how they deal with it, but there’s a year out from the election, they have time to close the gay.

        And Boag’s performance on the panel was just shocking, constantly talking over people without adding anything particularly relevant to the discussion.

        • Wensleydale 17.1.1.1

          Boag’s been a shrieking windbag of little consequence for years. I suspect they only keep inviting her on because if they didn’t, she’d end up one of those sad, slightly demented shut-ins shuffling through mounds of cardboard boxes and swarms of cats. Poor woman.

          • Matthew Whitehead 17.1.1.1.1

            Yeah, I understood why they invited her when she was the National Party President, but nowadays she’s of no particular relevance and her opinions are not particularly interesting or enlightening anyway, so it seems more like she’s the only one who wants to make time to give a pro-national view on panels, rather than that she has any particular qualification to do political analysis. (In fact, former insiders generally make very poor political analysts, and are much more valuable in answering questions like “is this normal for a political campaign?”)

  18. Cinny 18

    Awesomesauce, epic effort Michael Wood and team, boots on the ground, well done to all. Looking forward to seeing you in the house.

    Boots on the ground Labour, boots on the ground, worries about the media, boots on the ground. Any independent print media will acknowledge boots on the ground, seeing most local community papers are free, the public will also be aware of boots on the ground. Not ceremonial boots on the ground… eg opening an event, cutting a ribbon, pushing a spade while wearing a suit. But genuine boots on the ground.

    Damo keeps his boots on the ground and his seat and respect from our community for doing so. See this weeks issue of our local paper, page 3 for an example

    Again a big congrats to Mr Wood your family, your team and the Labour Party for their win and their boots on the ground approach.

  19. Ross 19

    As at 12.18pm today, the second biggest story on Stuff is “Wallabies’ defeat frustrates Cheika”.

    Still no sign of the by-election.

    At least it’s clear that Stuff aren’t an impartial and unbiased media outfit. I do wish, however, that at the end of their fawning stories about the PM and or National they would make the following disclosure:

    This is yet another party political broadcast on behalf of the National Party.

    • Well, yeah. This is what happens with media consolidation, and to be honest news media, at least in my lifetime, has consistently been friends to the National Party orthodoxy, both in terms of pushing coverage favourable to them when they’re doing well, and in terms of framing debates in their terms eg. around tax cuts.

  20. BM 20

    I saw articles on both Herald and Stuff this morning.

    Obviously of little interest to the readers so quickly disappeared of the “front page”.

    • Ross 20.1

      Yes, BM, obviously the loss by the Wallabies is highly relevant to NZers. 🙂

      • BM 20.1.1

        Must have been, if an article gets clicked on it stays on the front page.

        No clicks, the story disappears pretty rapidly.

        There is this story on the herald at the moment though, looks like there was some dodgy dirty politics stuff which involved unite union on election day.

        Disappointing but it’s what you’ve come to expect from the left

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760160

        • WILD KATIPO 20.1.1.1

          ” Disappointing but it’s what you’ve come to expect from the left ”

          Well cheer up and put away your tissues,… here look,… Ive even provided a cheery song all about the Right for you.

        • Cinny 20.1.1.2

          BM you read the article you posted before settling on using the word ‘involved’

          you said.. “looks like there was some dodgy dirty politics stuff which involved unite union on election day.”

          Herald reports that the protest was organised by the Migrant Works Association. What was the involvement of unite union BM? Did they ring the Herald and say, someone is doing a protest and it’s not us? Your spin is tiresome BM.

          “A march along Stoddard Rd to Parmar’s office yesterday was organised by the Migrant Workers Association, in protest at National’s treatment of Indian students who are being deported because of fraudulent documents submitted by education agents in India. The protest was publicised to media by the Unite Union.”

          BM I say that Dirty Politics is the outgoing government wheeling out big spender Foster-Bell on the telly to inform the public a bit more about his sexuality, looking for votes are we? Sad way to do it.

          • Muttonbird 20.1.1.2.1

            Wheeling out big spender Foster-Bell on the telly to inform the public a bit more about his sexuality, looking for votes are we? Sad way to do it.

            You’re kidding me. He was forced to come out on Q+A this morning? This is National’s effort to draw attention away from Michael Wood’s victory yesterday?

            That is pathetic. Memo to National’s comms team: no-one cares that Paul Foster-Bell is gay. It’s not news.

            • Cinny 20.1.1.2.1.1

              what i found particularly amusing is on Sunday morning Foster Bell does an interview about his sexuality, saying that the reason he is publically speaking out is because of Tamaki’s destiny speech on earthquake gayness.

              Fast forward to later in the day, a group of demonstrators outside Destiny Church, walking the talk, where was Foster Bell? Not involved was he, but trying to milk the narrative with relevance earlier in the day. What a joke.

              Foster Bell is gay and anti Destiny, big deal. How about doing some real work Foster Bell and stop having big spend ups with tax payer dollars, and also, why not stop bullying your staff?

              Meanwhile the outgoing PM’s screwed up face when talking to Henry this morning says it all.

        • framu 20.1.1.3

          be good if you could explain what was dirty and where the left fit into it

          because that article doesnt say much.

          If your trying to confirm that you have zero idea what your talking about you did a good job

  21. mosa 22

    Are there any Green voters from Roskill that followed their parties advice and voted Labour and could give some feedback on how this will influence them with their vote next year and does this mean the MOU is working for them with the huge win by Michael.

  22. Rosemary McDonald 23

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760160

    “Most Indians who voted in the Mt Roskill byelection swung their support behind Labour’s Michael Wood to keep National’s Parmjeet Parmar out, the third-placed candidate says.

    NZ People’s Party founder and candidate Roshan Nauhria said he remained committed to contesting next year’s general election despite being disappointed with his showing yesterday, getting 709 votes.

    The businessman put tens of thousands of dollars into his own campaign that targeted the electorate’s large Indian and Asian population.

    He felt the community swung its support behind Labour’s Michael Wood after being turned off by a “negative”campaign from Parmar.

    “People just thought, the only way to teach a lesson to Parmjeet is to give votes to Michael Wood and make sure he will win it.”

    Perhaps a quiet warning?

    Labour…don’t go down the National path of slagging off the other candidates/parties.

    Keep to the facts, don’t make it personal attacks against rivals, keep it clean.

    Oh, and Andrew…try not to gloat…

  23. Tamati Tautuhi 24

    Politics is no longer important to the NZ public?

    MSM have brainwashed us all into believing John Key has saved NZ and is leading us into properous timesahead in future years ie “the Rockstar Economy”?

    pol

  24. Tamati Tautuhi 25

    Politics is no longer important to the NZ public?

    MSM have brainwashed us all into believing John Key has saved NZ and is leading us into properous timesahead in future years ie “the Rockstar Economy”?

  25. Infused 26

    Just like reddit. stories are ticketed. your love story isn’t going to be up there forever. especially with the low turn out. no one cares.

  26. The lost sheep 28

    Are we now officially Post-KDS, and into the MCS era? (Media Conspiracy Syndrome)

    • Incognito 28.1

      Please define “we”.

      The only syndrome I suffer from AFAIK is PNS AKA “being alive”.

    • Nah, we’re more TOT. (tired of trolls)

    • framu 28.3

      “Are we now officially Post-KDS,”

      youll have to ask the key sycophants on that one – they are the ones that are afflicted with KDS

      and you seem to have forgotten the heralds deliberate false flag attack on cunliffe

      • The lost sheep 28.3.1

        2 words….’Confirmation bias’

        Yesterday was a textbook example. The MSM ran a wide ranging series of stories about the Mt Roskill by-election, as far as I discerned, all of which reported the result as a great result for Labour and a boost for Andrew Little.

        But that didn’t prevent some commenters here employing their ‘confirmation bias’ to overlook all that Left positive coverage, and focus instead on the Mt Roskill stories not retaining primary positioning in some media as ‘evidence’ of MSM bias.

        If you can see a conspiracy in that, you will be able to confirm conspiracies anywhere you look.

        • framu 28.3.1.1

          fair enough – but the MSM has engaged in conspiracy before – you cant blame people for being suspicious at times

          Though im not denying the positive coverage

          More pointing out that media conspiracy isnt a new thing

          • The lost sheep 28.3.1.1.1

            As long as we have a free press in which a range of people are able to employ comment, analysis and opinion, then any citizen will be able to find stuff that they personally don’t agree with.

            That’s why you can pop over to Whaleoil and find the RW’s also moaning about ‘media party’ bias.

            I conclude the media must be biased against everyone.

            • framu 28.3.1.1.1.1

              nah – they are shameless opportunists who will always take the easiest path possible.

              A free press would be good – but we dont have one – we have a lazy press thats constrained by budget, business models etc and is too open to manipulation due to its lax operating model

              For a free press we also need a rigorous and honest press.

  27. Paul 29

    How Mt Roskill voted

    “We were incredibly pleased by the fact that the support is so widespread. Places like Maungawhau where Labour has traditionally come second to National, we won 58 per cent of the vote.

    “Royal Oak Primary, a booth that we have never, ever won before according to 30-year veterans of Labour campaigns around here, we won. I just think that comes down to widespread concern in the community about those key issues of housing, transport and crime.”……..

    Wood’s performance was dominant even at voting booths in National-leaning suburbs such as on the edges of Mt Eden, and Parmar only won one of 22 booths – the Epsom Methodist Church (139 votes to 103).

    Wood won booths such as Maungawhau Primary School on the edge of Mt Eden (498 to Parmar’s 319 votes) and Royal Oak Intermediate (434 to 213).

    In Mt Roskill proper National voters were scarce, including Hay Park School (577 to 108) and Wesley Primary (262 votes to 7 for Parmar).

    In the 2014 general election, Parmar won booths against long-serving MP Phil Goff, including Maungawhau Primary and Royal Oak Primary.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760271

  28. Muttonbird 30

    As a corollary to this, I wonder how many articles the Herald has written about the Papini case in the US? Must be well into double figures right now.

  29. Henry Filth 31

    I would be careful about reading too much into it.

    “It is more like a bloody nose, a black eye and broken jaw” does seem to be rather gilding the lily.

    A by-election in a safe Labour seat, with a National government in it’s eighth year – the year before a general election.

    • Muttonbird 31.1

      National expected narrow loss. They got humiliated. That’s the story.

      • Henry Filth 31.1.1

        That strikes me as an unrealistic expectation for National to have.

        But your explanation does help me understand the general tenor of this post and it’s commentary.

        Thanks.

  30. Dale 32

    Labour wins safe Labour seat!
    Extraordinary! Not!

    • Muttonbird 32.1

      Ha. The butt-hurt from RWNJs continues.

      Yes, Michael Wood won as expected, but he absolutely crushed National with a strengthened majority. Make no mistake, the government is very unhappy about this.

      • Jenny Kirk 32.1.1

        I reckon so, too, Muttonbird. And something no opinion writer has picked up on, is that the Roskill electorate boundaries were changed to take in a much larger portion of would-be Nat voters. And its interesting the Nat vote didn’t turn out – why not ? Are the Nats starting to weary of their smarmy leader ?

    • Draco T Bastard 32.2

      A safe Labour seat?

      It’s a seat that party votes National.

  31. Antony Cotton 33

    TVNZ and Right Wing Friends playing Down Labour Win of Course Jessica Mutch Shouted at Little and Wood onQ&A you never it with Key or a Minister. Key Spin to people buy it but he will get found one day.

    • Whispering Kate 33.1

      Yes Antony I wrote in last night (end of Open Mike on the 4th) about Jessica Mutch. I had taped the programme and watched it last night. She was biased and absolutely was negative to Andrew Little, saying he lacked show pony appeal and went on and on about the polls. Nothing to congratulate Andrew about the win and acknowledging it for what it was – a right royal trumping at the electoral booths. Why do we have to put up with this terribly slanted to the present government rubbish and not giving the listeners/viewers a fair hearing. I hardly ever watch Q & A and The Nation and I now know why I don’t watch it – propganda nothing else.

      • mosa 33.1.1

        Yeah Kate even Bogus Boag was never restrained once and should have been by whatever means necessary.

        Everyone was stopped from making any negative remarks about Key.

        Its a bloody disgrace.

  32. Ovid 34

    I see Stuff has rolled out Phil Quin to concern-troll and declare that this victory is bad news for Labour. As, you know, celebrating a win is obviously a sign of complacency.

  33. RRM 35

    Congratulations Michael Wood and Andrew Little. The people of Mt Roskill have spoken, and a Labour Party Apparatchik who’s never done anything outside of politics is who they want representing them. Fair enough, it’s Auckland.

    On the back of this famous victory, I expect labour’s polling to jump significantly!

    Lab may even go as high as HALF of National’s polling. 😆

    Andrew “Gravedigger” Little 2017!

  34. Paul Campbell 36

    After all that posing who could have imagined it was Key who was going to fall on his sword

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Cameras on vessels to ensure sustainable fisheries
    Commercial fishing vessels at greatest risk of encountering the rare Māui dolphin will be required to operate with on-board cameras from 1 November, as the next step to strengthen our fisheries management system. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Fisheries Minister ...
    1 week ago
  • Greatest number of new Police in a single year
    A new record for the number of Police officers deployed to the regions in a single year has been created with the graduation today of Recruit Wing 326. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the graduation of 78 new constables means ...
    1 week ago
  • Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax
    New Zealand is pushing on with efforts to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, with the release of proposed options for a digital services tax (DST). In February Cabinet agreed to consult the public on the problem ...
    2 weeks ago