- Date published:
6:04 am, September 25th, 2013 - 269 comments
Categories: Politics - Tags: herald digipoll
Sure it’s just one poll but that’s nearly seven percent. And it’s (nearly) all come off National.
This goes quite some way to explaining why National are breaking out the desperate dirty tricks…
And he hasn’t even really done anything yet.
Good call by all those who have had their cards marked correctly for a few years.
Chocolate fish, gold stars and bonus points all around, except for the old ABC who get to do the washing up for a year.
Exactly, Im not surprised one bit. DC has only just started sorting Labour out, wait for the next year we will go over 40% because people cant stand National and John Key’s dishonesty, they just needed a good Labour alternative. The ABC brigade and their supporters need to be sticking to their humble pie diet.
I voted for Labour once and that was in 84.
My first ever time voting and look @ that mess…
DC needs to sack the ABC clowns that prevented him from becoming leader…
ALL of them…….
DC is the 1 reason I will consider voting for em in ’14
This has given me hope…
Without shonkey Nact is nothing………
My first election was in 1984 too. And further, I’m ashamed to admit that as a resident of Grey Lynn at the time I canvassed and scrutineered for Richard Prebble’s campaigned in Auckland Central.
“….they just needed a good Labour alternative….”
I think you’re reading the electorate all wrong.
National voters are really looking for a better National – namely the Conservatives.
You have to remember that Act were Liberals but they didn’t ever take too many voters from National, meaning that National voters are actually conservative minded.
Labour then doesn’t come into it as Labour can only govern with the Greens, and the Greens are mostly seen in the economy by conservatives as green battery acid!
National will simply drive that point home about the Greens, and Labour will then have to out-perform to have any chance at all of governing as a lot of voters on the left are Christian -or at least Christian minded- and will be attracted to the Conservatives as an alternative to ‘uncaring rich prick National’.
Colin Craig does not come across as a ‘right winger’ to Labour’s ‘taken for granted’ Christian voters. The Pacific Islanders over the Gay Marriage debate got to see Craig, and I’d speculate that he came across very well to them. Anyway, time will tell however!
Interesting observations. I am aware of two family members (male, white aged 50 and 48) who have voted ACT and National the last few elctions but are both saying Greens next time (Because they wont vote labour).
I wonder if this is where the “duped” voter goes. It’s hard to admit you have been lied to or duped when you were told not to trust someone/something, so perhaps by not going to Labour they are able to not feel like they have admitted being wrong?
Both say National didnt change enough, despite promising, but they mean economically, so it is odd they choose the greens.
My BIL (a lifelong Nat supporter) voted Greens at the last election rather than switch to Labour. I’d say this scenario isn’t that uncommon.
I know people who party voted Greens last time, and if they had to state their preferences would have gone with National second and Labour third.
Both my parent were National party supporters.. I sure broke the mould./mold 😛
They thought Muldoon was the second coming only coz they were farmers…..thing is they both be spinning in their graves over this so called National Govt….
That party will go the same way as the Christian Heritage Party. It really does not stand a chance, put your support elsewhere. In fact CHP had more support after two years.
And thank you to so many on The Std who gave us moral support and inspiration on the way. Now the real job is just beginning.
+1 Fabulous news!…Go Cunliffe Team NZ!
“And he hasn’t even really done anything yet.”
Actually, I believe this is untrue.
He has acted with a great deal of dignity. This takes effort.
The dignity he showed over the appalling treatment ensuing over the appalling spin that occurred around the last Labour meeting put him in great stead to be seen as a person with good qualities for a politician playing on the national and international stage; there are always going to be difficult issues in this arena and he showed he could cope extremely well under such conditions.
He has got out there and found out what people want and unapologetically stated what type of policies should be followed. This shows good qualities for a ‘representative of people’ and a great deal of courage considering the current orthodoxy.
He has made active efforts to engage with the online community of people interested and concerned over politics. I think this is a big deal.
The reshuffling has been done with a great deal of skill and integrity. This was never going to be easy, someone was always going to be left out, however he has managed to achieve it in a way that has come across as fair and based on merit, with the least amount of pettiness.
There has also been a huge amount of skill and efforts from many people in order to get Mr Cunliffe elected as leader.
I realise, Al1en that you weren’t really meaning he has ‘done nothing’ and actually agree with the overall sentiments of your comment, however I just feel the need to note, by way of acknowledgement, that Mr Cunliffe’s success to date is based on a lot of skills, qualities and efforts; not ‘very little’ at all.
“Actually, I believe this is untrue.”
“I realise, Al1en that you weren’t really meaning he has ‘done nothing’ and actually agree with the overall sentiments of your comment, however I just feel the need to note, by way of acknowledgement, that Mr Cunliffe’s success to date is based on a lot of skills, qualities and efforts; not ‘very little’ at all.”
Separated by a common language, almost. 😉
Just wait until he really gets going is more where I was coming from, but of course I concur 100% with the middle paragraphs.
It’s the Revolution, and we’re all in it 🙂
+1 Al1en 🙂
Congratulations Labour Party on fighting for a say in the selection of Leader.
Your efforts are paying off.
Shoutout to all those renewed or new members that gave the huge momentum.
You helped do this.
Buckle in for next year.
Yep, on board, buckled in and ready for the ride of our lives! 🙂
Great to see, overdue.
We have the leader, signalled a left turn away from centralist position and the people come home to labour.
Now we just need to reorganise the local level campaign to reach the weak voter who has labour identifiers, new campaign methodology I.e work done by uk labour.
The mood on the street is time national went..
What’s interesting is that poll comes off the back of the leftward pitched leader’s contest. Which kind of puts a lie to the “tack right” advice coming from the pundits.
I still reckon most voters (particularly uncommitted ones) don’t care about left or right, but rather competence, vision, hope and cohesion.
Better to stick to what you believe in, win the argument and do it well than try to cater the centre.
BUT I dont like or favour polls, so we need to keep focusing on what they will DO differently, not what they will say differently. Although as Opposition for now they only have words.
you mean like to Rio Tinto, Warner Bros or the foreign nvestors not covered by the guarantee over SCF?
It’s funny how the Righties always accuse others of the very things they love to get themselves
yup. People also accuse others of things they do or would do themselves, assuming everyone has their mores. Like lying on a CV… Cunliffe must have lied cos chris37 has lied on his, and Hooten obviously has lied before on his and so on… interesting human trait to assume others dwell where they do.
“Tack to the left” we said (or was that to Port).
It’s not simply Labour up, great that this one poll is… it’s Key losing 9.4 percent in preferred PM. NAct has nothing when the popularity of Key falls.
Just wait for the corporate media’s puppets to start frothing at the mouth
..the poppinjay Michael Hoskins, Larry Lackwit Williams amongst others
you mean Mike Hoskins who for days on end last week said the Cup would be in NZ in a matter of hours? Some of them have been made to look very stupid to Joe and Josephine Average over this America’s Cup, casting themselves as experts in everything and knowledgeable about nothing
in the poll article there is an admission (of sorts) that the media play a part in popularity describing the period since the resignation of shearer and the contest as a “blaze of publicity”
I think the worm may be beginning to turn in the media. Fran O’Sullivan was not particularly adversarial in this morning’s column, and she called Hooton out.
McKinsey… picture me shivering … these guys are the monsanto of business consulting
The trouble with this is that the media can still build a narrative around the likes of Hooton’s claim, and I expect that they will. They could remain silent about it for a while, and it will fade from the readership’s consciousness. Then, shortly before the election, there will suddenly be opinion pieces containing statements like “… and Cunliffe has always had question marks surounding his integrity. Not many of his colleagues trust him, and no sooner was he leader than rumours began swirling that he had doctored his CV to overrepresent his charity work, and that he had falsely claimed to have helped establish Fonterra.” The qualifying clause, “… and immediately shown to be complete bunk” will probably be omitted. I imagine that establishing a sort of urban legend like that, something which is vaguely in the public consciousness and can be built up by right-wing commentators, is exactly what Hooton was after.
The public can smell crap.
Don’t underestimate their intelligence.
75% of the membership ignored the ABCs.
A large chunk of the general public will ignore what it detects as malicious propaganda in the media.
The comments the Herald are making about it are interesting. The editorial states that National would have a ‘moral right’ to govern if they were in the 40s but Labour wasn’t. However, the actual article makes it clear that on the numbers National just couldn’t get enough seats with their partners to have a majority. I assume the editor doesn’t want the public to understand how MMP works, so is pushing this first past the post rhetoric to try to confuse the issue because otherwise, on these numbers, we’d have a Labour-led government.
sounds like Roughan logic…the editorial writers come fom their senior journos right?
Lolz, but nobody cares about the GCSB Legislation do they, i have been waiting for the numbers to turn since watching ‘the Vote’ the other week where the Tory view on affordable housing got a 75% caning,
The Roy Morgan gave a hint the other day and that Herald-DigiPoll just yelled out to National ‘Trouble’,
i think the numbers in Nationals own internal polling have been going south for quite some time now and Smile’n’Wave having gone past it’s used by date the ‘handlers’ of Slippery the Prime Minister have used their international connections to dream up His latest Mr Popular whirlwind tour of some of the best known slums in places like Balmoral,
While not time to have a massive ‘enjoy Hawaii Slippery party’ just yet, there’s still much to do on the fringes like keeping the fires in the Ohariu electorate burning against ‘the Hairdo’, the numbers give us an injection of inspiration which makes the work all the more enjoyable,
i had my weekly peek at that other prediction site that the right wing scum/spinners claim not to have a hand in these days and lo and behold they have wound up ‘the Conservatives’ above the 5% so we can presume that efforts will be made by them at some stage to try and ‘spin’ this into a coalition partner in waiting for Her Highness the Slippery one…
“…….there’s still much to do on the fringes like keeping the fires in the Ohariu electorate burning against ‘the Hairdo’………………..”
working on it bad, working on it:-)
You have worn that bow tie for too long for any good that you have done….In the name of God begone!
sadly Labour and Greens steal from each others chance to win against the hairdo…
Aside from the parties, theres a community centred movement in the electorate doing work around Dunne, but more on that another time…………..
In the local paper awhile ago Dunne said he hasn’t ruled out running for MP again next year. With over a year to go to an election, and all that will happen in that time, maybe there is an small chance he will finally stand down. Like Ennui says he’s been wearing that bow tie for far too long. 29 years!
If he does stand again, then maybe this time Labour and Greens will come to an arrangement about not standing a Green candidate. Surely by now they must realise the importance of that?
Perhaps his deal over the emails with Key, is a foreign posting? Lockwood has London… is the USA open, or would he prefer somewhere european?
Is Katrina Shanks going to stand and be shafted by her party again? What’s the word on the ground Rosie
I’ve only been in the electorate for a year and a bit, apart from the ’08 election when I was here for 3 years, so I’m just starting to get a feel for the history and views of the community, and the likely ways to move ahead with a campaign around Dunne’s actions.
I’m reluctant to outline what I’ve learned so far, in terms of current status and campaign plans as it’s not my place, until there is a consensus reached by the group, and the spokesperson makes it public.I did however put a comment on Open Mike on Monday, 26th August, after attending a public meeting hosted by People’s Power Ohariu on the Sunday. In that comment I talked about the areas of Dunne’s votes that guest speakers covered: Helen Kelly, employment legislation, Adi Leeson of Ploughshares, GCSB, John Maynard, Asset Sales and someone from the Salvation Army (sorry, I didn’t catch his name) on the Sky City deal.
As for Katrina Shanks, I’m not sure at this point. I’m guessing that if Dunne doesn’t stand, then National will actually stand by her this time, unlike last time. I even felt a bit sorry for her because she still tried. She came third last time and Charles Chauvel had come closer to Dunne in ’11 than he did in ’08. I wonder if they get a really kick arse Labour candidate standing in Ohariu whether they might win. With Dunne gone we would remove the thorn in the side of NZ.
Lolz, as are others…
remind me which electorate you are in Bad?
Lolz, one not far away from Ohariu, as yet tho i am not under house arrest and having not read the laws surrounding electioneering feel free to make the odd mistake…
Tracey, albeit the numbers for National have crashed in this one poll, and while i want to see that crash turn into a catastrophic rout for them we have to work off of the possibility that either NZFirst could be in the next Parliament and support National,
Or, the Conservatives could quite conceivably,(by stretching your imagination), gain the 5% of votes necessary, so, we are better then to consider that ‘the numbers’ after November 2014 are likely to be very tight,
The beauty of an anti-Dunne campaign in Ohariu is that there is no need to convince people to vote ‘for’ a particular party, there is only the need to convince the voter of Ohariu to NOT vote for Peter Dunne,
In a tight contest even National winning the Ohariu seat will leave National with one vote less in the next Parliament…
is that the same for Epsom?
I live in Epsom… i voted electorate for Goldsmith last time to try and push Banks out. My National voting brother in the same electorate voted Banks…
I never know if I am gazumping myself.
As far as i can tell Yes, that’s why the chimps had the tea party, if National win Epsom in a tight contest they are light a vote from Banks,
There is a point in the % of Party Vote where this no longer holds true, but, if National slump that low in the polls then they are gone anyway…
I actually delivered pamphlets for the greens the last two elections in my electorate… it’s always been pretty much about the party vote for me in this electorate. last electorate I was in was Ms Clark’s.
Banks has gone very quiet BUT his last pamphlet made me chuckle and gag… I sent it back with some suggestions.
Tracey, there may or may not be specific laws around you as a ‘person’ making up your own Anti-John Banks leaflets and delivering them into the electorate bit by bit,
Small stones chucked into the pond are likely to create large ripples, like i say there is no need to be ‘for’ someone in such electioneering,
Many moons ago a van-load of us went through the Ohariu electorate with an Anti-National pamphlet drop, it was mean and nasty, lolz bad if you will, and didn’t propose that the voters of that electorate vote ‘for’ anyone simply proposing that they did not vote for National with a number of reasons why,
It’s hardly a ‘scientific’ result , but, the voters of Ohariu have not elected a National MP in that electorate since…
or have they not because they (Nats) have consistently shafted their own (Shanks) to get Hairdo (or dont) in?
I have contemplated a list of Keys lies… a run of 1000 or so flyers…
Tracey, you are never going to turn the electorate of Epsom against National, you are better to concentrate on an anti-Banks message,
You have it right with your 1000 leaflets, you can always go further as you get the resources,
My advice is wait till the end of the year and by then Banks will or will not have conviction number 2 from the District Court…
And this is a pool which tend to under estimate Labour support on the day. Holy shit. Keys popularity drops to record low as PM.
With the Greens at their highest point in at least two years. Its like waking up in a different country altogether!
What’s really crazy is that a quarter of those polled prefer a Labour PM. Knives out for Key.
but, but, but the Queen likes him… so wait til the poll taken after that visit…
Everyone KEEP CALM.
The new poll looks promising. But so did the Herald DigiPoll back in March which had Labour at 36.4. The intervening one, in June, put the party down to 30.9%. So one of three things has happened.
a) Labour has enjoyed a huge surge in the polls. Good, but it has to be maintained.
b) The June poll was an outlier and the panic then was unjustified.
c) The June poll was correct and the current one is an outlier, in which case we’re doomed.
More data needed.
Lolz. Time to push Key as preferred PM under 50%.
The Herald online is saying that Slippery took a turn for the worst while walking to the UN this morning, first having to lean on the wall of a building and then spending some time ‘recovering’ in a nearby pub,
Perhaps His ‘tummy-bug’ was the result of having been ‘tweeted’ the latest poll results…
Agreed. One poll is just one poll. A couple of favourable Roy Morgans and a few similar polls amongst the other polling companies and I’ll start getting interested.
One difference between those two is that, in the March poll, the extra 6% that Labour had didn’t come from National. It came mainly from the other parties, including the Greens and NZ First. This time, however, the 6% has come mainly from National (which has remained largely unchanged since the election).
Most of the polls brought out since the leadership contest began are showing at least some support dropping from National to Labour. The exact amount of support seems to vary to a large degree, but I think you can safely say that a fair few people have swapped their support. The question is, can Labour maintain that support? A lot can happen in 12 months…
Teflon john is slipping out of the
pan into the fire .
No wonder hooten is worried national would have been informed much earlier by their internal polling!
I’ve been predicting a landslide loss for National for sometime ( before DC took control) & it looks highly likely when you take into account the previous non voters coming back into play. Key & National will be thrown out in disgrace!
Unity moderation of our message that is not giving shonkey amunition ie labour greens going to the far left is what we need to be very careful about!
But we also need to back this up with hard work get the left out to vote the best way for that is to help on the ground words are all
very well but to reach those 800,000 who did not turn out last election.
These non voters be identified contacted and inspired to participate in our democracy!
Go left is what Labour, Greens and Mana need to do in accordance with their own constituencies and styles. You don’t have to wear a beret and fatigues to go left, certain yanks will be shitting bricks after suit wearing David Cunliffe made the perfectly reasonable statement about the text of the TPPA being made public.
I don’t like or trust polls but do accept that the “over time” view has validity. Blue has been dropping and Red slowly rising for months now. Plus when the dirty filthy Herald can longer fiddle its own poll and has to show a positive result for Labour then something is going on!
Tricldown please explain why you are advocating for a gutless colourless centrist messaging when it is clearly the “hard left” rhetoric of the Labour leadership challenge which has caught peoples imagination.
Perhaps Ed Milliband has adopted a similar strategy?
I think Bunji (above) has a point – within certain bounds, many people in the so-called ‘centre’ are looking for (a) a party that knows what it stands for, (b) looks competent and decisive, and (c) resonates with their particular concerns.
As Trotter recently wrote, the ‘centre’ is the most malleable part of the political spectrum just because its members prioritise these kinds of attributes.
That means two things – any party needs to cleave to its ‘core mission’ (to provide it with the requisite decisiveness and certainty that underpins perceptions of competence) and needs to show how its approach speaks to what concerns people about their life and their society.
Those two things can be achieved whatever the political hue so there’s no point in ‘tacking right’ if it doesn’t seem like a fit with the ‘core mission’ of a party (and vice versa).
The one good thing about being characterised as ‘hard left’, for Labour and the Greens, is that if they pitch their policies and rhetoric in a way that responds to what most people in the ‘centre’ are looking for then those same centrist voters won’t like being called ‘hard left’, by implication.
That is, the label could backfire.
There is a huge campaign starting just before Christmas from an ‘A’ political group who have been plotting a very hip drive to get the previous non voters out in high numbers. My partner is a tech geek & is administrating their social media campaign, she will be taking on this role full time till the election is over (so i guess i have a proactive interest).
What I’m allowed to say is they intend having these people voting early, like a week ahead of election day. I’ll post the link on here once their social media drive starts, please share far & wide it’s a ripper plan.
If admin from this site want a quiet heads up (due to trolls) they can email me for further details.
Easiest to send us or me a email. It is on the contact page
Is this why the Pm is feeling unwell? Or is it because he wants to get across to San Francisco and can use the excuse of needing to get home and doing it in jumps.
“Is this why the Pm is feeling unwell?”… it could be.
Sure as heck cheered me up this frightful day 🙂
“He needed to lean against a wall for a few minutes before going into McFaddens pub. He spent about five minutes in the pub before emerging, looking very pale.”
Yes the PM is unwell, hope he gets well soon, but hope his poll ratings continue to get sicker.
ShonKey takes ill”
“He needed to lean against a wall for a few minutes before going into McFaddens pub. He spent about five minutes in the pub before emerging, looking very pale.”
Yes the PM is unwell, hope he gets well soon, but hope his poll ratings continue to get sicker.
ShonKey takes ill
I sometimes think you can find clues about who writers are writing for early on. read this from Clare Trevett
“Prime Minister John Key’s dance card in New York is crammed from top to bottom with meetings – and the dance partners are not the usual ones as he tries to woo votes for a seat on the Security Council.”
Dance card? dance partners? Thats a very particular demographic who still thinks in those terms or even recognises them.
I am not sure how to respond to this. Luckily, I have six years of precedent.
1. The polls are rigged.
2. I met a guy the other day who used to think Cunliffe was brilliant but now recognises that he is a bastard.
More enlightening diatribe from the appropriately named Gormless Fool.. /yawn.
[lprent: The first part of his handle wasn’t his choice. ]
lprent: The first part of his handle wasn’t his choice
It kind of was. People have called me many names on this site. I have chosen which one to put in my title.
Let me rephrase that. At the time you got it, it wasn’t your choice. That you kept it has been your choice 😈
And I would wager that as long as you continue to post complete bollocks and act like a muppet then the list of things you have been called on this site will continue to expand. As it stands I suspect the number on said list far outstrips your IQ…
If only I was as smart as you, thatguynz. I can tell you are smart because you used “said list”. Mint. Are you from the 18th century?
. People have called me many names on this site. I have chosen which one to put in my title.
he claimed, standing tall and speaking with pathetic dignity.
..whatever pathetic dignity is.
possibly pretending you chose your name when in fact someone chose it for you and then you decided to keep it?
Hey, Tracey, tell us the funny story about how you chose your name. Or did someone else do that for you? Did you decide to keep it?
I can’t wait.
Hey, Biscuit Barrel, where’s that poll you “seem to recall”?
Have you gone all Hooton?
In the graph here. November 2011 27.4%. April 2012 34.8%. Actually, that’s over 7%. My memory’s not so good, I suppose.
Cunliffe has taken it to the next level already. Damn fine work.
Which only demonstrates that Barrel doesn’t know the difference between polls and votes. You compare A with A, not B with A. So, you’re wrong.
Just a reminder – every single published poll (without exception) in 2011 said that National could govern alone. And yet … they can’t.
What matters are the votes. The people, not the Herald. I’m not going to waste time explaining what that means, you’ll find out on election night.
So, gobsmacked, you’re not getting excited about the latest Herald Digipoll. Good on you.
Others are. Some of them have commented on this post. It was more to them that my comments were directed.
Sincere apologies for the confusion caused by the lax addressing of my comments. I hope that this apology will allow us to put this matter behind us.
And gobsmacked clearly doesn’t believe in Tracey’s idea that democracy has nothing to do with popularity.
He thinks it’s all about the popularity. Crikey! Wouldn’t like to get between them. Crazy kids!
now now… you are losing that carefully crafted faux distance
I think the righties are going to find that their cook book approaches of even the recent past are going to fail to rise.
pukka tukka my friend.
has cunliffe been proven to have lied?
Key wont put up taxes…
Key will pay down debt with proceeds from asset sales…
Labour made them pay out the guarantee to SCF…
Labour locked them into buying the BMWs
So, you are right, if Cunliffe proves to be a liar (proven not high pitched allegations) he wont have my support. Does Key have yours?
20.5: The purposes of a mans heart are deep waters, but a person of understanding draws them out.
20.11: Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right.
(will take a lot of spin to move those ‘conservatives’ towards anything Colin Craig has to offer; sheep are not that bright, yet they survive many a harsh winter to leap about in spring).
Let’s keep the Marque Vue chilled until we get a few more good polls in though, eh?
Muck Spew? Are you trying to get me to wish for good polls for National?
Three good polls in a row and I’ll be breaking out the Bernadino Spumante.
Pity my 70s fave sparkling “Muscato Bianco” (“a flavoured wine based drink”–on label) one of if not the first with a screw top, is no longer available. ‘Cold Chuck (Duck)’ even I would not go there. Spectacular results for the halter topped girls after a few mixed with onion dip and chips.
Anyway whatever the beverage the celebrations will be due alright if Key can be kept in a bilious state and the disengaged involved.
Ah the 80s (and the 70s)…memories of alcoholic beverages past. has everyboody recovered from the toxic shock / hangovers yet?
Mine came from that 80s invention, Chateau Collapso…..cardboard box with wine bladder. Omn the beer front there was Lion Brown or DB….and when in Dunedin Speights..lots of choice, any of three!
Older people beware – times and capacities have changed. Now winebox with cardboard bladder. Inclined to leak.
lol, are you having 80’s power moments again felix?
On the cautious celebratory note, what about a sing a long when it really is time to celebrate? There is a cross over of musical flavours among TS commenters and authors, that I have happily noted. All good rousing stuff. I propose a medley of musical contributions to the site at the time we take down the Key regime.
Let’s start now. 76 Trombones for one. Hallelujah, don’t know whether Buckley or Leonard. Something joyful from Handel? The choices, the bells…
Better than Nationals theme song…
Kill the Poor * Dead Kennedy’s
Definitely Leonard. I can feel it now, the tears of joy. There are other Halleujahs too. Happy Mondays spring to mind. I was thinking of going completely left field and learning some jigs and reels care of our Irish and Scots ancestors. Jigs come in handy for a spot of grave dancing too.
the Happy Mondays’ version.
pulling out all the corks then. (St Aubyns methode champenoise Brut by the case, in my 20s, from a little off-license in Marton; did not cellar for long).
oops double Sevens, time to leave the table)
I think Key beat you to it…
my worst new years hangover was on this stuff at mt maunganui… first I came out of the sound dome and my brother grabbed me by the shirt as I started crossing the road because the streets were lined with lads chucking glass bottles at each other (DD Smash had been playing btw)…
went to the beach, drank more spumante, then the riot police arrived, I ran toward home, my brothers toward the riot police… got home and introduced myself tot he porcelain, over and over again…
CV Muldoon savaged labour by focusing thr voting public on the radical left He maintained
Power for 9 years by doing that
Key and Crosby Textor have already signalled that is their strategy we can outflank the lizards of OZ and teflon john by swallowing some dead rats to under mine this strategy!
The left have rarely shown unity that’s why we don’t get the reigns of power!
We need to play a very smart game to outflank the right which we know have virtually unlimited resources and play our cards close to our chest .
Policy in the shorterm should just be broad generalisations because nactional will swallow any dead rats to stay in power and will steal good popular policy and call it their own just like muldoon did with super bribe in 1975!
I think we’ve seen that the public survived the last month of cries of “Labour candidates are going hard left!” very well.
Muldoon era FPP comparisons are borderline irrelevant now.
You should move into the MMP age.
CVshure the MMP age we saw how john banks didn’t tell us that they were going to set up charter schools national would have lost more support by having Act policy that may have lost national enough support to govern 1 less seat and it would have been over we need to be careful.
what I am saying is we can back official policy but not policy that national will use to undermine the swing voter.
next year NZ will have 3%+ growth so long as we don,t have a drought.
because of CHCH building boom taking off as National have planned it.
Dairy payout around $8.60.
People believe this growth is a sign National are good managers of the economy (its the economy stupid)!
The left need to show they can work well together and have policy areas they agree on because With the figures looking goood for National the left will need a huge number of ground workers to get those who didn’t vote out.
MSM will give National an endless free ride if growth of this magnitude happens .
Any claims of far left-ism do need to be checked against reality though: http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2011
Like your prose tricledown
lizards of Oz
reigns of power
Good points to think about.
A poll!s result is only as good as last weeks performance.
Yesterday in the house, Labour were on fire and if they are to maintain their ascent in the popularity poll!s,they are going to have to keep stoking it, not only in point scoring in the house but also with a policy platform, that the public can have belief and certainty in,that will put us on the road to a fairer egalitarian society.
Dirty tricks are Nationals stock and trade. I doubt this poll has anything to do with this, its simply their approach because at the end of the day they really are not interested in governing but instead leeching off the public and no accurately informed voter is going to support that.
What Labour and the Greens need to do is get off their asses and develop strategies to combat this. Their own media campaign and marketing as well as repeatedly reminding the public of Nationals worst excesses is essential if they want to win.
Say what you like about the man but Winston Peters is a great asset in this sense as he is a master of self promotion which explains why he has endured whilst others have fallen by the wayside. If Labour could get over their childish partisan approach to politics and work with him they could learn a lot. Sure they would have to compromise but as I have said repeatedly that’s what MMP is all about.
Important and illuminating stuff coming from whistleblowers. Should we start a trust fund that helps out such people who are likely to lose their jobs and incomes sooner or later?
The way the world is going, with transparency of government diminished while our lives, sayings and doings are open like a peepshow to political voyeurs, their enforcers and their pimps, the only chance of having some effect on steering our direction in a positive line is through these chinks in the laser curtain.
Is there anybody out there who still believes Shearer was the solution, not the problem? Or that leaders don’t matter?
Look more closely at the poll. In the preferred PM rankings, the previous Labour leader has disappeared. Even Goff, Clark and Robertson (plus Norman and Peters) get a few votes, behind Cunliffe.
This matches the weekend TVNZ poll, where – again – Shearer simply vanished without trace. Look back over the historical precedents, and you’ll see that ex-leaders hang around in the polls for a few months, as some voters loyally cling on, or maybe just don’t catch up with the news. I cannot recall any leader of a major party ever disappearing so fast from the public consciousness.
It is stubborn stupidity, against all the evidence, to believe in some fantasy world where Labour could have carried on without changing their leader. Labour voters didn’t want him. Case closed.
As opposed to innumerable other factors that can affect the party vote on election day? yep. me.
Frankly, all your comment does is reinforce my belief that much of the faith in Cunliffe revolves around fandom interpreting the facts to fit their faith, rather than the alternative.
Leave it a while. Get some trends. See how much is established support, rather than a bounce due to weeks of campaigning and coverage during the leadership contest. Remember Rudd as well as you think you remember Shearer.
You’ve ignored my point, and answered one I haven’t made.
The party vote may well bounce around in the polls. My point was about the preferred PM. Read it again.
You seem to be linking leadership personal popularity with party vote, otherwise how could preferred pm polls be a “problem”?
Based entirely on one datapoint each from two different polls, which is wishful thinking to the point of wilful delusion (which was my point).
btw those dirty tricks metaphors were funny Flockie; not shaken, not stirred. Word!
Based entirely on the last 20 months.
By any measurement of public opinion, Shearer was a problem for Labour. If you’re determined not to acknowledge that (presumably for reasons of personal stubbornness, not analysis of evidence), then that’s your right. It does make you look silly, though.
McFlock was, and remains, one of the oddest oblique-passive-aggressive Shearer/Robertson leadership team supporters on this site.
ahead or just behind sHooten Up???
That right there: if I’m not with you, I must be agin you.
Bollocks. Maybe I am just reluctant to rest the hopes of NZ on one man. Particularly when he seems to me to be somewhat interchangeable with a couple of others.
Right there is an example of exactly what I mean when I said
Nah mate. Not the slightest bit of support for shearer/robertson in that comment. So I’ll reiterate the “If not with then against” line.
Oh look McFlock, I think I understand where you stand very well, and I described it above.
One of these days you might want to stop trying to mash reality through your faith-based filter.
Are you talking about labour’s polling, or shearer’s personal polling, now? The two are very different measures, and quite frankly have debatable relationships with each other.
The first 16 months or so of Shearer in relation to labour’s polling do not back up your assertion.
But I will concede the tautology that the personality and charisma of the leader are important factors in “preferred prime minister” ratings.
However, I think that the “preferred PM” ratings do not “party support” make, indicate, or even particularly contribute to when compared with depth of caucus, depth of policy, party financing, media bias, media format, opposing parties’ depth of caucus, opposing parties’ depth of policy, lobby group financing and expertise, party cohesion, international events, and random acts of god.
You might think that the leader is the key determinant of a party’s performance alongside or ahead of all those other factors, but frankly to me it seems like you’re fixated on a 12c landing gear lock-indicator bulb while the plane is still flying.
you are good at winging it Flockie; a Drysdale perchance, or a Ryeland?
the references escape me
Breeds, yet it can be conceded that leadership can influence caucus depth party cohesion (and random acts of god) for example. don’t force me to think Flockie .
True to a point, although depth of caucus is down to the main candidate selection process. If the entire caucus were made up of John Banks, not even Cunliffe could make it run competently.
But at best the leader can affect a couple of factors that vie for position to affect the party as a whole. Personally I think that co-leaderships are a way of getting out of the media horse race and actually looking at parties and policies as a whole.
That and campaign funding, lobbyist registers, tightening up the sham trusts I believe are used by some MPs and parties to hide conflicts of interest, and so on. But I digress.
Yes from co-leaderships on down. If given the opportunity the Greens moral stances may lend them to negotiate to address those funding / lobbying matters as they would be natural benefactors.
pls excuse the colour, out of white ink.
do you think Key’s popularity is irrelevant to their wins in 2008 and 2011?
I think ’08 had more to do with Labour as a whole being a bit knackered after three terms, really. Policy, caucus, everything.
And 2011 was dominated by Pike River, RWC, ChChx2, “Labour ditched us with it” still being fresh, and the Rena off the top of my head. Labour was keen, but pushing shit uphill against all that.
One could argue “show us the money” was a good line (I suspect overplayed, though), but that’s balanced by the RWC 3way and one or two other keyisms. Would a Cunliffe in charge of Labour have beaten a Shearer or Brash in charge of the nacts? Maybe, if the winds blew fair. But I think the imbalance would have had to been that disparate or more for leadership alone to swing 2011, and doubtful even then. Goff did a solid job, much better than one would expect from a pure “caretaker” leader. But that first election in opposition was always going to be a bugger.
It seems that, when asked,quite a few people think that the leader affects who they, themselves, vote for.
A similar number say it doesn’t, but the 40% who do remains quite a significant group.
Then again, perhaps people don’t have a good understanding of why they vote for a particular party – they might think it’s because they approve of the leader but, subconsciously, it’s the policy depth, media bias, etc. Of course, things such as ‘media bias’ might itself be affected by whether some journalists like or dislike a party leader and some party funding might also stem from personal liking for the leader.
Since no-one knows just how all these factors interact and coalesce, the point, presumably, is to maximise all parts of the ‘equation’ – including the leader’s appeal, media savvy, clarity of communication and the like.
Informative link my friend.
Churchill wasn’t important in winning WWII; only his policies mattered.
Churchill is a good example of leaders who personify something that is present but needs a focus around which to organise.
I think some people, quite rightly, are not into ‘hero worship’ or the elevation of an individual above what is needed for the common good, but that doesn’t mean that the selection of the ‘right’ leader for the moment is unimportant.
Irrespective of what David Cunliffe, the individual, is or isn’t, his selection has done something that needed doing and that wasn’t happening previously, despite the fact that ‘it’ was ripe for happening.
It has given just about everyone – even those on the right, I suspect – a sense that something has now changed so far as party political fortunes are concerned.
That changed moment and momentum can of course be lost – but the very fact that it is there to be lost shows that the game is different.
Churchill? Bah, the young won’t buy (or read ) his writings today. I own a few, can’t give them away. Conflation. (They would not be here in their present form; such foolishness). Fascism has it’s appeal.
Considering what I said about the 2011 election and the respective roles each leader could “play” in the events 2008-11, not sure that this is particularly applicable to 2014.
Churchill is an interesting one, but possibly exceptional, even if one includes the speeches allegedly made while drunk or by an impersonator.
My long-held concern is that there’s fixation on one (probably less than significant) part of the equation is being focused on rather than the full equation.
I suppose the plus side is that the other parts of the equation aren’t being second-guessed and heckled by the morning tacticians.
McF, what are you basing this strongly held belief on? I’m yet to see any reasoning or working for it beyond a lot of “I reckon”s.
The fact that there’s more going on in a country or an election than whether a leader says “um” or stutters.
McF, don’t forget the totally vacant and frightened look of a man totally out of his depth. It was far worse than just a few ums, ahs and stutters.
Yeah, right, whatever.
The “totally vacant and frightened look of a man totally out of his depth”? Nope.
Somewhere in between is what I saw.
“….. is what I saw.”
Well it’s a good thing others had their eyes fully open 😉
“Somewhere in between is what I saw.”
Yep, you’re probably about right there. Unfortunately it seems that “Somewhere in between” isn’t enough to inspire much support.
Sometimes squinting can help you see better 😉
Reminds me of some of the polite (but long-standing) “qualitative vs quantitative” debates we have at work. Economists might know the price of everything and the value of nothing, but the trouble with value is that it is highly subjective.
@felix: So far, Cunliffe is “somewhere in between” as well…
Well that’s also highly subjective. Of course we have no way of knowing anything objectively about how Cunliffe compares to Shearer except from the aggregate of the opinions of just about everyone who has one.
Putting Cunliffe in the same grade of Labour Leader as Shearer was?
Crack open a Tui for me mate!
Indeed, Felix, I’m all in favour of giving Cunliffe more time to demonstrate a Rudd-bump and then to demonstrate that the bump can be maintained.
@CV – it is a very wide grade between the two extremes outlined above 😉
I broadly agree with McFlock.
You can support Cunliffe without being a total fan-boi.
Weird thing to say, Ramsay. Where are these “total fanbois” you speak of?
Or are you using McFlock’s definition, i.e. “anyone who didn’t unquestioningly support Shearer for his entire underwhelming term as leader, regardless of whether or not they actually expressed a preference for who his replacement should be”?
Not my definition.
Mine would be more along the lines of “people who dramatically exaggerated Shearer’s shortcomings at every opportunity, while minimising or excusing Cunliffe’s slips of the tongue and delays in getting a campaign website up and running on the day of his announcement (despite having an entire weekend to prepare it)”. That sort of thing.
lolz. I guess it’s just a pity no-one else saw in Shearer what you saw.
remember cunliffe is already popular with his membership and unions… those are votes that are probably a given for Labour SO the real guage is those who are undecided or weren’t going to vote Labour under hearer but might now?
Cool Tracey. Add the number of union members to the number of Labour party members – delete the duplicates and work that out as a percentage of the voting population.
The next Minister of Foreign Affairs? (To slightly alter one of Matthew Hooton’s predictions.)
I don’t put much store in the accuracy of opinion polls unless they confirm my pre-conceptions.
Yes polls tend to be of limited value. Especially given the number of red neck trolls who haunt sites like Stuff and the NZ Herald.
Indeed. And that’s just the writers and editors.
[deleted] iprent, deleting comments he seems incredibly biased, [deleted]
[karol: you asked for it, so I’ll send you off to moderation. I aim to please…..]
[lprent: unmoderated because there are replies.
Banned for a week so this munter has time to read the policy that we generally follow while moderating. While the wanker is at it, he should read the about so he understands what this site is run for. As a short hint, it isn’t for untalented trolls without any creative abilities and poor observational abilities. ]
Oh boy, this is going to get good..
Lol, reply left orphaned after original seems to have been deleted.
Lynn – feel free to delete these as they are now without context 🙂
Not deleted. I sent it to moderation. The commenter pretty much asked for that, & I aim to please…. 🙂
Yay…….promise of some good old down and dirty biffo from Paul Scott !
Know when to fold ’em chap. You’re on a hiding to nothing. Back to SlaterPorn with you.
Before you go what please is “th next” ?
Edit: as with ThatGuyNZ – Scotty’s gone.
so ya gotta be creative now. Hmmpff. (gets the Huff.); and observational as well. Is the end in sight…
I think the mini autobiography explains things..
revealing ZET (and a little sad).
That’s what I thought, sad.
It has been such fun watching the natzis on the various forums now decrying the validity of the same polls they were vaunting a fortnight back. Too funny.
I seem to recall Labour enjoyed a six point jump in the Herald Digipoll when Shearer became the leader. How’d that work out?
off your victuals today G.?
No. My apetite is always healthy.
fast, and a banquet.
Hang on – is that true?
“What is truth?”
if Left feeling a little peckish in the waiting room, bone up on these spicy Ingredients . Brings tears to more than the eyes.
do you hold to the view that having media publicity is more likely to have fuelled the jump for Shearer then Cunliffe?
“seem to recall” don’t cut it.
Not too badly. From memory, that went from ~27% to ~33% which is pretty much where Labour stayed once you factor the bounces out.
This one went from ~32% to ~38%. So if Labour sticks there and the Greens stay high as well, then National look like they’re going to on the wrong side of the house
Ummm can you see why National are running around like stuck chooks sticking John Key’s sock-hand up the arses of his Hooten/Farrar/Slater sock-puppets?
What do you mean National getting dirty?
They have always been dirtier than dirt and only now are we seeing it come out into the open.
Nevermind their comeuppnace is on its way.
they will stop using Hooten now… and find another dupe to do their dirty work so they can say things like “we dont believe in playing the man not the ball” etc etc
today key said getting on the security council is a hard road to row… he is our G W Bush
But what are the trends saying?
Do you mind if leaders lie? If no, would you draw the line, and where? If yes, which leaders.
Look – I can’t see how this can be spun as anything other than good news for the left. But let’s not get carried away here.
You would expect a bit of a bump from the selection of a new leader. Somebody said that Shearer got a bump at the same rate which is a little bit disconcerting if true. I think being overly celebratory here is setting the left up for a fall.
Maybe I am in the minority but I really don’t believe individual leaders can usually make a big, sustained impact against the underlying political gravity. You can jump up from the baseline for a time but eventually you are dragged back down to the levels of the basic political realities.
Remember when Krudd backstabbed Gillard and Labour surged in the polls only to gradually, but assuredly, slipped back down to Julia Gillard levels. The same thing happened when Julia Gillard backstabbed Krudd and initially surged (enough to eek out a second term) before naturally declining down to pre-coup levels.
If David is going to be a succesful Labour leader, it won’t be because he delivers a quick fix, but because he will have put in place the structures and the attitudes to ensure Labour’s natural level of support is between 35% and 45% – not 25% and 35%.
Somebody said that Shearer got a bump at the same rate which is a little bit disconcerting if true.
“Somebody” was a visiting rightie, and it’s not true. The polls are all online, Google/Wikipedia.
You’re right about basic tides or gravity, but you miss the point. Shearer was holding the tide back. Remove the obstacle (i.e. a guy who swing voters could not imagine as PM) and you get the proper tide – which is to the left.
There is no comparison with Rudd/Gillard. That was an unpopular gov’t. This is about opposition to a gov’t. Chalk, cheese.
Cunliffe doesn’t have to be a saviour, he just has to let Labour/the opposition get their true level of support. Again, see all the polls on policies … Lab/Grns are with public opinion.
For all the hating, I didn’t really think David Shearer was a bad leader and I am probably more tempermentally minded towards his political position than I am towards Cunliffe’s (expressed) positions. (Is that enough to get me banned here?). These things take time and it’s so easy to forget how badly Labour initially did under Helen Clark – about as well as Phil Goff. These things take time whoever they are.
So, if your minded to consider my views you should probably see them through that lens. BUT I wouldn’t be surprised if Labour’s position settles back to a very small net gain at this stage. What will the headlining article be on the Standard then? Labour falls 4%?
You’re right to say that Australia isn’t a perfect analogy – but what is? Maybe a better example is after Don Brash, ahem, ‘exploded’ onto the political scene and brought National back from the brink. The polls subsided, though, and he ended up losing that election. It was John Key who really re-aligned politics in the country and his National Party has ended up the most popular political entity in living history. (Saying that unpleasant truth will probably get me banned if nothing else does).
And as for the polls on individual policies – sorry, I don’t think that’s what wins elections. Look at Obama, whose corporatist insurance law is deeply unpopular (as much as asset sales are) – yet the people resoundingly reelected him because they trusted him to govern. That’s what it’s all about.
damn, that’s where you lose me.
Show me Clark’s highest PrefPM rating or party rating. Match it with key’s. Who wins?
being really popular doesnt automatically mean you have done a good job. This isnt a popularity race it’s the future of our children and their children. Sounds trite but only because people have turned politics into a popularity contest or a sports game.
Yeah. Democracy. What bullshit.
Wow, do you really think that popularity = democracy?
I think you left out a large number of principles eg rule of law, due process, equitable treatment, etc
A large part of democracy is precisely a popularity contest, Mr Picky.
It has been framed as a popularity contest, that doesnt mean that is its essence. Popularity means democracy is about who has the better Hooten, Farrar, Bradbury etc and the funds for PR (crosby Texter etc).Your form of democracy is a kind of prostitution.
Succumbing to your definition explains alot about why the gap between rich and poor in this country is widening. No trickle down as promised by Douglas and Richardson… well not for those at the bottom… but golly they were popular that Ruth and Douglas ( at first anyway)
OK Tracey. You’re talking about something that’s important to you. Just not democracy. In which some people try to get the most votes from other people.
Money doesn’t buy elections.
Snap out of it, man, you’re dreaming.
Sorry Tracey – but the sausage making of electoral politics is a popularity race.
You dont seem sorry.
I am sorry you think that a political party in a liberal democracy doesn’t have to worry about it’s popularity with the voters who decide elections.
Bismarck. interesting. been some skin-pulling going on today indeed. Sorry Nick, that may be the Karma Police from DoC and MPI knocking.
Kevin Rudd had the highest approval rating once, at 71% yet right before the last election must’ve been the most hated.
Popularity in politics is a fickle thing and has a limited life span.
In terms of elections, the Party under Helen Clark registered 28.19% in 1996, 38.74% in 1999, 41.26% in 2002 and 41.10 in 2005 and then 33.99% in her final election in 2008.
Key doesn’t have the same length in office as a leader but he got 44.93% and 47.31% the second time. That’s pretty resounding and it’s slightly better than Clark achieved. I’d call it a realignment (on the basis that no alignment is permanent).
If I was a betting man at this stage I would pick a third National term with Peters – which will signal the end of the Key era. if Cunliffe suceeds – and I think he’s got it in him – he’s going to do it as a Tony Abbott style political manager. But I just don’t think it will be an instant success.
What a load of bullcrap.
For starters, Cunliffe is going to be able to give “Womens Affairs” to an actual woman.
I seriously hope Ramsey is being funny? I am confidant that Cunliffe has more substance in his little finger than Abbott has in his entire body.
Ok – so because you detest Tony Abbott you’re going to deny that he ran an extraordinarily disciplined campaign? I’d wager you don’t much like John Howard either. Would you consider him to be a failure as a politician.
In life, there are ends and means. Ends can only be achieved by certain means and it’s not helpful to pretend their aren’t good practioners on both sides. The trick is not to sacrafice too many of your preferred ends so as to render victory useless.
That’s why Bismarck said politics is like sausage making – it’s looks better when you don’t see it being made.
oh please. playing to the misogynist australian voter and Rudd sabotaging from the inside… abbotts campaign was full of blunders and yet he won. He didnt need to talk about actual policies (which is good for his supporters).
You need to rename yourself machievelli (sp). ends and means tricks …
Funny you quote Bismarck. Abbotts thinking wouldnt be out of place in 1868
Bismarck? That awful, awful man who pioneered the welfare state and secular state education.
What on earth makes you think the average Australian voter is a mysoginist?
Ramsay lol Abbott as Minister of Womens affairs lol
I guess he didn’t want to overload his single female Cabinet Minister
you’re being selective about bismarck despite bringing him up first.
what makes you think they aren’t? Taking Abbott’s lead of course.
I’m not being selective, I think Bismarck was a skilled political operator who pioneered not a few good things. You’re the one who used him as a slur.
And speaking of slurs – sorry, I think that if you allege that an electorally significant sector of Australia’s population is ‘mysoginist’ then there’s an onus on you to prove it.
You think your pretty distractions are worth a damn? It seems like the average Oz Liberal party leader doesn’t think women can handle Cabinet. Let’s work from there, shall we?
I don’t think the average Australian is mysoginst. They elected Julia Gillard and, guess what? They probably had a fair idea of her sex then.
I would agree that gender politics is probably not high on the list of priorities of the average Australian voters – and so probably factors in very low in the election outcome. However, I don’t think that makes them sexist and I would wager that most NZ voters probably feel the same way.
Bismark. A model for liberally minded political activists..
“They elected Julia Gillard” is the best you can do? Did you sleep through the last 18 months of sexist attacks that she endured?
Regardless this is all a nice distraction; the next 2 months worth of polling will be telling. Even the next Roy Morgan will have been taken partially before the leadership result was announced.
Bismark?!? A model for what precisely?
“Gerwarth argues that the constructed memory of Bismarck played a central role as an anti-democratic myth in the highly ideological battle over the past which raged between 1918 and 1933. This myth proved to be a weapon against the Weimar Republic, and exercised a destructive influence on the political culture of the first German democracy. Frankel (2005) shows the Bismarck cult fostered and legitimized a new style of right-wing politics, and made possible the post-Bismarckian crisis of leadership, both real and perceived, that had Germans seeking the strongest possible leader and asking, “What Would Bismarck Do?” ”
“Bismarck’s psychology and personal traits have not been so favourably received by scholars. The American historian Jonathan Steinberg portrays a malign genius who was deeply vengeful, even toward his closest friends and family members. Evans says he was “intimidating and unscrupulous, playing to others’ frailties, not their strengths.” British historians, including Evans, Taylor, Palmer and Crankshaw, see Bismarck as an ambivalent figure, undoubtedly a man of great skill but who left no lasting system in place to guide successors less skilled than himself. Being a committed monarchist himself, Bismarck allowed no effective constitutional check on the power of the Emperor, thus placing a time bomb in the foundation of the Germany that he created.
During most of his nearly 30 year-long tenure, Bismarck held undisputed control over the government’s policies. He was well supported by his friend Albrecht von Roon, the war minister, as well as the leader of the Prussian army Helmuth von Moltke. Bismarck’s diplomatic moves relied on a victorious Prussian military, and these two men gave Bismarck the victories he needed to convince the smaller German states to join Prussia.
Bismarck took steps to silence or restrain political opposition, as evidenced by laws restricting the freedom of the press, and the anti-socialist laws. He waged a culture war (Kulturkampf) against the Catholic Church until he realized the conservatism of the Catholics made them natural allies against the Socialists.”
More on Bismark..
“The government tried to Germanize the state’s national minorities, situated mainly in the borders of the empire, such as the Danes in the North of Germany, the French of Alsace-Lorraine and the Poles in the East of Germany. He pursued an extremely hostile policy concerning the Poles furthering enmity between the German and Polish peoples. The policies were motivated by Bismarck’s view that Polish existence was a threat to the German state. Bismarck compared Polish population to animals that need to be shot and privately confessed that he would like to exterminate them ”
Does this bring to mind the policies of another German chancellor of the 1930’s?
Try here or here .
“One of the most popular political entities in living history” would be valid, unless you count “Government coalition” as an “entity” in which case you’re screwed. But “the most popular political entity in living history” is hype built on faith rather than reason.
Ok – you got me. There might be a little hype in that and I hope I’m not betraying too much personal detail by disclosing that my own political living memory doesn’t extend past the 1993 election. And it’s certainly a valid claim for the MMP era.
But instead of dissecting every sentence in my comment, I’ll just reiterate my main points:
1- National has had a high ceiling and a high basement lately. The relative unpopularity of Goff, Shearer and asset sales did not stop nearly 5 out of every 10 Kiwis saying the wanted a Key administration more often than not. There are other parties that could have benefited. They didn’t.
2- A bump in the polls is a welcome but expected sign. If you pin too much on it not settling back down you’re going to be in for a disappointment when it does. And I think it will.
3- It will take a sustained effort and – yes, political skill – to remake the political ground in a way that fundamentally alters the calculas of NZ politics. The govt may or may not help this – but it will take more than a fresh face and a hyped-up party base. Just ask President Romney.
calculus? I sucked at calculus.
The only reason the national party have high support (which they do) is because their coalition partners have imploded to sub-threshold levels and national absorbed the support as the only alternative. The “left” is served by more diversity in electoral options, with winstonfirst occupying a narrow middle ground.
This is not a sign of national’s strength. This is their achilles heel. Unless a couple of credible coalition partners emerge for national, their success is doubtful in 2014 and highly unlikely thereafter, especially as the status quo will shift leftwards again.
Labour, the Greens and Mana are all looking to go full left, because partial left merely trod water. Their main differences are simply how hard each will press the accelerator.
Or they could go into a (final) coalition with New Zealand First.
possibly. If both parties have enough, and if key is prepared to sell out abjectly, obviously and comprehensively.
Yeah – it would be the death knell. But I haven’t every heard of a politician who turned down office (well, I can think of one but wouldn’t get any credit for mentioning it).
Even Helen Clark placated that odious man with a ministerial limo to ensure another 3 years of Labour government.
Ramsay, your stats look like party vote stats and treats them in First Past the Post terms. You ignore the spread of votes among smaller parties.
That really doesn’t give a true picture of election results in an MMP system
It means that National will get a strong 41.8% in 2014 and be annhilated out of Government.
Oh dear, your mathematics isn’t found wanting or your application of statistics is it? Or your mathematics is correct but you deliberately ignored the actual parameters of MMP as opposed to FPP?
Hadly, I just don’t this a N/NZF deal is unthinkable as the people who have somehow come to think of Winston Peters as being some sort of Left Wing Hero.
so never means when it suits me to this PM?
you need to meet srylands who has been mysteriously absent this past few days.
Ok – you take John Key on his word at that.
Nice we know Labour can relax now. Had thought it would be hard work – so who would have thought it would be a simple matter of selecting David Cunliffe as leader of the party. That’s the election done then.
Peters has never been a left wing hero.
But he has pretty much always been an old-style conservative, not a neoliberal. He also plays to the support and welfare of his constituency (goldcard, anyone?). All factors that suggest a deal with national is unlikely, even if the nats get 43% and winston gets 6%. For example, partial assets sales ended his coalition with shitley.
So he’ll go in as the guy who stopped asset sales AND kept the Greens out of office.
Peters went with them in 1996 and since then he’s been pretty consistent in his view that saying the party that got the most votes should try to form the next government. Baring a miracle, that will be National.
I’m not sure how willing the nats are to suspend their agenda just to stay in government – brownlee maybe, but collins?
“Somebody said that Shearer got a bump at the same rate which is a little bit disconcerting if true.”
Here is the Herald Digipoll results for the past few years, excluding the latest.
The November, 2011 poll results look like the election results (see here for the exact percentages on the election website). That means that Shearer’s ‘bump’ was from the election result (when people actually cast a vote) not from the previous Digipoll.
The previous Digipoll had Labour on 29.1%, down from 30.3% prior to the election campaign. That makes the Shearer ‘bump’ about 3% over the previous, non-election campaign polling.
I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that gaining a ‘bump’ – even one similar to Shearer’s – is “disconcerting”. This ‘bump’ is into the high 30s so it builds on the ‘Shearer bump’.
Yeah – except it won’t be enough.
lolz yes it will! LAB 36% GR 13% makes the government, mate.
Assuming it stays at 36%
Except that the categorical statement “it won’t be enough” is an equally bold assertion that the left won’t maintain that level of support.
What we can state is that it’s a plausible assumption that the left is currently ahead of the tories, so merely need to maintain that position rather than gaining ground from behind.
True. As I said way back when – this can’t be spun as anything other than good news.
Don’t know what you have against dirt. I’m just going to put some seeds in mine. Just one of my pre-conceptions about useful things to do with dirt.
And I thought that NACTs were a farming party built on the stuff. Another pre-conception.
It seems that they have wandered away from the true path of stalwart, upright, hard-working and honest men (and good-looking sexy other gender supporters) who represent all that is good in this fine country of – ours, theirs, his, hers?
Being a Green Party member what is also pleasing about this poll is the rise in the Labour vote which has not cannibalized that Green % of the vote,
In fact the Green Party has risen slightly, (08%), in this latest poll and should these numbers hold up into 2014 it means i can allow my vote to float across to the Mana Party,
There is a slight chance that the Mana Party could have 3 MP’s in the next Parliament and while many of us are tribal in nature with our votes we also must give some thought to the ongoing health of ‘the left’,
MMP means coalitions so we need a strong Labour Party which has a natural constituency in the 38-40% area of popular support but it is also vital that we grow parties of the left, National in it’s present perceived predicament being the classic template for what can occur when the punishment of small parties at the hands of the electorate leaves the larger party with ‘no friends’,
i expect the Maori Party to disappear at the 2014 election and my hope is that smart Maori will vote strategically with their Electorate and their Party Votes, there is still a chance that NZFirst will be a figure in the next Parliament but after that i fully expect Winston to retire and that party also cease to exist,
Upcoming polls this year and into the new year of 2014 will tell us how much room there is for ‘strategic voting’ at the 2014 election and i suggest those not totally tribal with their votes spend a little thought on such voting with a view to the make up of left Governments well past the next election…
A very pleasing sign. National’s only circuit breaker between now and the election is the budget. Expect them to go hard around that.
[karol: I thought this guy was on a week’s ban.]
[lprent: Ban doubled to two weeks. He obviously hasn’t read the policy. ]
So is “Ramsay” the upgraded “Shitlands”?
They are a bit harder to spot without the rubber skin, best keep a few dogs around.
Yes, the 1984 Government devalued us by 20%. Act now send money to foreign currency, expected devaluation 15% in one year
Which “foreign currency” would you recommend buying then? The US dollar, which is currently being printed at the rate of US$45B per month via quantitative easing?
How about the Japanese yen, a currency being printed by a country undergoing demographic collapse, an expanding nuclear disaster, and an insolvent government?
There is always the GBP. This is a currency also being printed by the country’s central bank, in an economy completely captured by (and highly responsible for) the previous Global Financial Crisis.
Then you have the Euro. A single currency which pretends it is still one currency, except that a Euro held in a country like Greece or Cypress is actually worth far less than a German euro. Go figure.
So come on mate, give us your recommendations for capital flight and currency safety.
One last point: anyone who has so much money but won’t invest it in creating NZ jobs and would prefer to hold it in foreign currencies probably deserves to lose their NZ passport and be exiled to those countries. They can invest their monies offshore just as we can divest ourselves of them offshore.