Labour up in Fairfax poll

62 comments on “Labour up in Fairfax poll ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   2 November 2011 at 9:07 am

   Labour/Green is at 41% and National’s likely supporters are floundering.  And even the most ideologically right must agree that Labour is out campaigning National.
    
   This election is becoming more and more interesting by the day.
    
   Another 5% swing and it will be all on.
   • fmacskasy 1.1

     3 November 2011 at 12:39 am

     Spot on, Mickey.
2. Lanthanide 2

   2 November 2011 at 9:33 am

   iPredict has National’s vote at 45-46% and Labour’s is currently being held down by a very large sell order at 31% (seems someone doesn’t want it to rise).

   If National do end up with 45-46%, then it all comes down to the minor parties, particularly NZ First and Act.
   • Colonial Viper 2.1

     2 November 2011 at 9:47 am

     I think NATs will fall to 43% to 45% on polling day. A big call I know, but like you Lanth I reckon its going to come down to the minor parties.

     Key is going to eat crow and ask Epsom to vote for Banks. He absolutely has to, in order to have a chance of forming the next Government, if like you say NATs drop to 45%-46%.
     • Lanthanide 2.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 10:09 am

       Yeah, I think 43-45 is certainly within the realm of possibility and I’m hoping for that too.

       If Key does back Banks, hopefully there will be some revelations about the unsavoury company that Banks keeps. That would be a completely rubbish thing to base one’s vote on, but some people do make decisions based on such things.
     • swordfish 2.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 5:10 pm

       Colonial Viper: “I think NATs will fall to 43% to 45% on polling day.”

       Lanthanide: “Yeah, I think 43-45 is certainly within the realm of possibility…”

       Well, Christ, I hope so, but it’s still a pretty big ask.

       Most recent polls have National close to 53%, Labour + Greens around 40%. We need a 7 point swing to be in the game – not impossible but fairly rare. The New Zealand Election Surveys of the 1990s and early zeros suggest that considerable swings in party support do indeed occur during election campaigns, but also that these tend to cancel each other out (voters moving in opposite directions).

       Having said that, there has been the occassional election (93 and 96, for instance), where the swing during the campaign has been largely in one direction. Despite Bolger’s ‘Bugger the Polls’ comment in 93, the Election Survey of that year revealed that the polls had, in fact, been reasonably accurate. They appeared well out because a sizeable swing away from National (and virtually no movement in the opposite direction) occurred in the final week before the 93 election. Let’s hope something similar happens this time. Or – rather than hope – let’s get those erstwhile non-voters out and about on election day – and teach those sausage-sucking Tory Huns a thing or two.
3. tsmithfield 3

   2 November 2011 at 10:14 am

   Yes, I guess you would have to be euphorically excited that Labour is sprinting like a glacier up to National 🙂
   • KJT 3.1

     2 November 2011 at 10:22 am

     Not really. I was hoping voters would have an intelligent information injection and vote Green. Labour is still too similar to National.

     Not much chance though when the media has an IQ of 45 on a good day.
     • aerobubble 3.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 2:06 pm

       As National voters realize National have no answers, then the spectre of Greens
       holding the balance rears its head, and strategically could shift to the right
       wing of the Labour party led labour party. Goff sat with Douglas all those
       years ago. So why would National voters vote for style and possibile
       Naff-Greens government, when they could give Labour a landslide.
       Did Labour really do that badly for 9 years, if memory serves they
       got debt down and ran pretty tight ship. A CGT without Greens
       at the table, best of both worlds.

       Yeah, on best of both worlds. Asset sales are the worse of both worlds.
       The whole point of Asset sales is putting businesses into private control,
       but asset sales as proposed don’t do this, so its not an argument for
       asset sales, in fact selling out 49% halves the dividend to government
       and the benefit of holding them in public hands. Why anyone on the right
       who says they like Asset sales actually likes National asset sale plan
       is either a fool, or doesn’t want the asset sales for the ideological reason,
       they want to buy some shares themselves and make a quick killing selling
       them. But you see they are foolish in the extreme, this is not the 80s,
       the markets are always rising, its the long holder of shares that are
       looking to buy into state assets, the global pension funds. So we will
       be gifting the regular turnover from state assets to foriegner boomers
       and have to reduce super even further, or delay it farther off to 70.

       So why is anyone with any economic nouse considering National as
       a credible option. They are a feckless clown party who will say
       anything and then do whatever they want however reckless to
       the leaky homes buyers of the future, the miners of the west
       coast, the beachcomers of the Bay, the watery soils of ChCh.
       They love no CGT because it makes it easy to rip profits
       from the NZ economy and buy a home in Hawaaii.
   • mik e 3.2

     2 November 2011 at 6:13 pm

     Undecided voters Tsm made MSM polls look better than the reality 20.4% undecided that makes nationals election night vote at only 42% While the polls say 53% of 80% of voters I’d be worried if I was Jinxed key!looking at the poll below its even more scary for 1 term Jinks Key the Celebrity politician. Reminds me of the Rena what national have done to the economy while Jinxed key is getting every photo op drunk with power the economy has run aground
   • mik e 3.3

     3 November 2011 at 12:31 am

     Obviously you haven’t heard of global warming the glacier is moving rapidly down stream with melted water and is collapsing like nationals majority
4. idlegus 4

   2 November 2011 at 10:18 am

   did i hear the latest horizon poll right? nat 36% lab 30% ??? maybe i misheard?
5. Brett Dale 5

   2 November 2011 at 10:19 am

   Yes Idlegus you misheard.

   national is 20 points ahead in the latest poll released today

   Labour is just in this thing to keep it close for 2014.
   • Dv 5.1

     2 November 2011 at 10:32 am

     Idlegus is right

     National down 3.6% to 35.7% of decided voters and undecided voters with a preference
     Labour up 4.1% to 30.4%
     Green Party up 2.9% to 13.7%
     New Zealand First down 1.3% to 6.5%
     Conservative party up 0.7% to 4.1%
     Act up 0.8% to 2.7%, but with the support of only 43% of those who voted for it in 2008
     Maori Party down 0.7% to 1.2%
     Mana party 0.5% to 1.8%
     United Future up 0.5% to 0.8%
      
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 10:44 am

       I just heard Brett Dale shit his pants.
       • idlegus 5.1.1.1

         2 November 2011 at 10:51 am

         +1,000,000
       • Brett Dale 5.1.1.2

         2 November 2011 at 12:22 pm

         LOL!!!!!

         yeah labour is only 6 points behind, there is a tui ad there somewhere.
         • Ari 5.1.1.2.1

           3 November 2011 at 12:37 am

           http://horizonpoll.co.nz/page/168/labour-up-4-1-winston-king-maker

           1% difference in party vote tallies between potential coalitions, with a 2.9% margin of error. At best that’s a 4% lead for National, and that’s assuming they get lucky with lifeboat candidates, and that they don’t get unlucky with either NZF, Mana or the Maori Party offering supply to Labour.
     • insider 5.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 10:52 am

       Doesn’t the Conservative Party at 4.1% make you just pause a little and ask whether there is any credibility in these figures at all?
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1

         2 November 2011 at 10:59 am

         Well within a typical +/- 4% error rate. Small party accuracy is always smashed by the sampling issues.
       • The Voice of Reason 5.1.2.2

         2 November 2011 at 11:00 am

         Nope, insider, it tells me that ACT have no credibility and there is a small, but significant protest vote developing in the posher parts of Auckland who don’t like being railroaded into supporting the useless John Banks and his underling Dopey Don Brash.
         • insider 5.1.2.2.1

           2 November 2011 at 11:31 am

           That wouldn’t give you 4% of a national poll unless only one or two people could queer it which means a very small sample. I’d have thought the Conservatives getting up like that would also see NZ First or UF benefit as they are similar and have known brands. That result makes no sense.
           • s y d 5.1.2.2.1.1

             2 November 2011 at 1:35 pm

             http://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/168/labour-up-4-1-winston-king-maker
           • Craig 5.1.2.2.1.2

             2 November 2011 at 5:10 pm

             This may be pure conjecture, but I suspect that Colin Craig and the Conservatives have probably vacuumed up demobilised New Zealand First and United Future activists and local electorate organisations, as well as what’s left of the Kiwi Party infrastructure. Added to which, yes, it is an Auckland poll. Whenever I’ve mentioned Mr Craig outside the Bombay Hills, there’s no name recognition. I suspect that the Conservatives aren’t just competing for the NZF/UFNZ/raving right constituency, they’ve managed to persuade them with a demagogue leader, akin to Winston.
             • insider …

               2 November 2011 at 5:15 pm

               He seems to be putting leaflets into local papers every couple of weeks and he has at least one paid for billboard in Wellington
               • Ari …

                 3 November 2011 at 12:39 am

                 Yeah, I have to look at his face on my way to work every day. Much more depressing than actually going to work. 😛
     • Zaphod Beeblebrox 5.1.3

       2 November 2011 at 11:51 am

       Its the trend thats interesting. 3 polls in a row all showing Labour up by 3-4%. Who knows which poll is closest to the actual numbers. Won’t matter if Goff keeps peeling 6-8% off the margin each fortnight.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.4

       2 November 2011 at 1:22 pm

       TV3 website: Labour within striking distance

       Of people who didn’t vote in 2008, 52.7 percent back Labour, against National’s 20.3 percent support.

       That there is the money quote.

       Turn out turn out turn out!!!!

       Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Labour-within-striking-distance—poll/tabid/419/articleID/231470/Default.aspx#ixzz1cVExpQVx
6. JS 6

   2 November 2011 at 10:25 am

   It is very easy for big investors with vested interests to affect ipredict and hence perceptions of polling. Now what was Lord Ashcroft doing in NZ again?
   • Matthew Hooton 6.1

     2 November 2011 at 11:25 am

     Lord Ashcroft can’t be doing a very good job then, given iPredict has always predicted a better result for Labour and a worse result for National than traditional polls!
     • mickysavage 6.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 12:57 pm

       So Matthew …
        
       You posted an article on the electionresults site claiming that Labour was trying to manipulate the ipredict market.  Do you have the slightest shread of proof, even an itsy bitsy bit of proof that Labour did this?
        
       Yet you are strangely silent about the large shorting of Labour’s party vote at .31c?  Some one short sold 1,000 shares at that price obviously wanting to stop the price increasing beyond that point.
        
       I raised this on Red Alert and the order then magically disappeared.

       And why has electionresults not posted a very similar comment to this one that I made on the site?  After all if you are going to make these allegations on the web you should allow a contrary view, particularly one that is backed up by those fancy facty things.
       • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1

         2 November 2011 at 1:55 pm

         I posted about the 1000 shorts at 31c on the iPredict forums too, when there were about 890 remaining on the books. Next time I looked (today), it was gone.

         Be interesting to know if the same account that placed the 1000 short is the same one that apparently attempted to manipulate the PM one.
         • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.1

           2 November 2011 at 2:36 pm

           Which forum Lanth?
            
           My comment has just gone up but the editor deleted this passage from it:
            
           “Rather weird allegation to make Matthew.

           I can assure you the upper echelons of the Labour Party know how markets operate and have better things to do with their money.”
            
           It seems Ian Llewellyn is the editor of the site.  I think we need to keep a bit of an eye on it as the site does attract public attention.
     • mik e 6.1.2

       2 November 2011 at 6:22 pm

       Jinxed KEY
       becomes 1 term KEY
       or is that Turkey
   • DJL 6.2

     2 November 2011 at 12:39 pm

     Well one thing is for certain. Him and Key didn’t talk money…………. Now theres a Tui ad
7. Jenny 7

   2 November 2011 at 11:10 am

   Fortune favours the brave?

   ANTHONY R0BINS

   In answer to your question Anthony, fortune does indeed favour the brave, the question is this policy actually brave, or a cowardly concession gifted to the market. At a time when the market should be being reined in.

   The Problem:

   The wealthiest 150 New Zealanders had increase in wealth of $7 billion last year – most untaxed.

   CEO salaries rocketed ahead. The August 2011 survey by Businessday revealed that “Top chief executives are being paid up to 50 times as much as their average employees – and the gulf between boss and worker is widening.”

   Wealth in New Zealand is even more extreme than income inequalities. The wealthiest 10 percent of the population hold over 50 percent of total wealth while the bottom half of the population hold 5.2 percent of total wealth.

   Will this policy worsen or lessen this problem?

   I cannot see how raising the retirement age can possibly lessen this problem. Maybe you would like to explain it?
   • r0b 7.1

     2 November 2011 at 11:42 am

     Will this policy worsen or lessen this problem?

     Raising the super age isn’t a solution to the problem of the gap between rich and poor (Labour has other policies that address that).

     It’s a solution to different problems, the sustainability of our super scheme, and the fair distribution of resources across society.

     See this post here and the report from the medical profession that it describes. Basically, poverty amongst the elderly isn’t our problem in NZ. Poverty amongst children is.

     The argument to protect the generosity of super at all costs is, by default, and argument to keep depriving children. In a world of finite resources we have the balance wrong. It needs fixing, that’s why I support the change.
     • KJT 7.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 12:36 pm

       Maybe you should look at it the other way around. Having an income floor. A GMFI for pensioners has all but eliminated poverty in that age group.

       Instead of looking at reducing pensions (which is part of the TINA dogma of the far right) we should be extending the same idea of a minimum income to all age groups.

       Paid for by taxes on dysfunctional economic areas such as financial gambling, excessive wealth and offshoring profits..

       In NZ we are not short of resources to feed and house everyone at a reasonable level.

       The expansion of incomes at the poorer end, those who spend locally, will also help lift local business and the tax take.

       Just swapping the poverty, between the elderly and children, is not the answer.
   • mik e 7.2

     3 November 2011 at 12:40 am

     yes its not till 2033 and Kiwisaver will be well and truly entrenched which means that those savers will be able to retire 2 years earlier at 65 another incentive to save plus people are living longer National has the Cullen fund[ now at 20 billion ]and kiwisaver so our children and grand children can pay for our retirement considering the work force will be a smaller percentage op the population that means something has to give. better plan now than when its to late.
8. randal 8

   2 November 2011 at 11:16 am

   the people of new zealand know that Labour and Phil Goff will deliver.
   National willl only swan around waiting for the main chance.
   i.e. getting some shares in the soe’s, stagging them and sloping off.
9. JS 9

   2 November 2011 at 11:35 am

   Anyone consulted the astrologers? Last one I heard of was from February and mentioned that Key had obviously not consulted an astrologer about the 26 November election date, as it was a very inauspicious date for National.
   • Jim Nald 9.1

     2 November 2011 at 4:35 pm

     Hi from Singapore
     I’ve been catching up with a few Feng Shui masters and astrologers here, including those who do their castings based on the Vedic system.
     Key is inauspicious for National and for New Zealand. Given his birthdate/year and his face reading (Mian Xiang) and if he clings on to power, there will be another lot of bad news arising before Christmas 2011.
     Am told that Goff has castings that are better for the country as his aura is that of a guardian (as compared with Key’s being a parasite).
     If astrology is your thing, good luck with your vote.

     I won’t post any more about the astrological readings because these can be misused and counteracted before Nov 26.
     • Hilary 9.1.1

       2 November 2011 at 7:38 pm

       Fascinating. I haven’t heard of any astrologers here being asked by local media for predictions. Has anyone else?
10. tsmithfield 10

    2 November 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Don’t worry.

    National has just pushed the “kick the beneficiaries” button that working people love. Sue Bradford is dutifully playing her part by getting up on TV saying how National is at war with beneficiaries. The combination of benny bashing and Sue Bradford is worth probably 5 points to National. 🙂

    Next they’ll be pushing the “get tough on criminals” button which is also appealing to the wider electorate.

    Both the issues above are ones that Labour is very weak on, from a perception point of view, so will be difficult for them to combat.

    Also, it looks fairly unlikely now that NZ First will get across the 5% line, especially since Winston has chickened out from competing for an electorate. Since most of this vote would be left-leaning, this can only benefit National if the wasted NZ First votes are allocated between the parties on a pro-rata basis
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 10.1

      2 November 2011 at 12:32 pm

      Might work, but they are going to need a better salesperson than Bennett. My tip is that it will be a one day wonder. Jobs and the Economy are the issues everybody is talking about.
    • mik e 10.2

      2 November 2011 at 6:29 pm

      With no jobs that will back fire just like the 170,000 jobs Liar Key promised that turned out to be 60,000 more unemployed plus 100,000 gone to Australia
      No credibility Key
      Tsm polls are starting to show chooKeys lies are coming home to roost
      the teflon is wearing thin for 1 Term turKey
11. Jenny 11

    2 November 2011 at 12:20 pm

    In a world of finite resources we have the balance wrong.

    r0b

    That’s for sure. And as you say Anthony this policy doesn’t address that. So what does it do?

    Isn’t refusing to address the problem of social inequality, condemning us to forever scrap over the crumbs?

    The link you provided says that doctors prefer that available resources should be prioritised for children, Doctors aren’t politicians and have no or little say what the level of resources they have to work with are. Whether those resources should be taken off powerless pensioners or powerful billionaires is a political call.

    I know which I would consider the politically courageous course of action, and it isn’t the one you support. In fact I would typify Labour’s policy as distressingly gutless.
    • r0b 11.1

      2 November 2011 at 12:33 pm

      Isn’t refusing to address the problem of social inequality, condemning us to forever scrap over the crumbs?

      Labour isn’t refusing to address social inequality, it has other policies that do that (not vigorously enough by any means, but better than going backwards under the Nats). But not every policy is about that, it can’t be, that’s just silly.
12. Jenny 12

    2 November 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Labour’s policy is hardly a Robin Hood policy more like a sneak theft from the elderly to provide for the children, but leave the billionaires alone.

    Anthony no matter how much you try and dress this up, real hardship will result for Maori Island and low paid workers.

    Deny it if you can.
    • r0b 12.1

      2 November 2011 at 12:44 pm

      See above.
13. vto 13

    2 November 2011 at 12:48 pm

    It is interesting and telling when you consider how each of the main party leaders came to want to be PM of NZ…

    Goff (assuming here) wanted to be PM, I am guessing, in order to help and improve NZ and its lot. As well as to simply be the boss no doubt. The way he has gone about it has been to get active in politics and work in it to achieve his aims. This has involved quite a few decades of work and protesting and implementing policies when in govt. He wanted to achieve things in politics so got stuck into politics.

    Key on the other hand had a childhood dream to be PM. So he went about it in an entirely different manner. He figured he would have to get to know important people so he joined the local golf club. And he went off and made millions first. And met other ‘important’ people, such as the Rothschilds who own the largest money printing machine that has ever existed, the US Federal Reserve. Then he finally came back to NZ in his late thirties / forties and at last started to enter politics so he could, well, um, start working for the ideals he thought NZ needed. And he was fired to the top by way of slingshot.

    So, one got stuck in straight away and has worked in the system to try to achieve what he saw. And the other first went and got to know “important” people and make millions and then come back to get stuck in and work (and is not concerned if he loses).

    Don’t know if I have outlined that very well, but the methods each has followed imo explains an awful lot about their true motivations. Key clearly doesn’t really care and just wanted to be the boss. Goff clearly has cared and has proved it and also wanted to be the boss.

    Says it all really.
    • KJT 13.1

      2 November 2011 at 12:52 pm

      I think the most telling comment was Goff’s.

      If you are not in this place to make life better for your fellow New Zealanders then you should not be in parliament. ( Can’t remember his exact wording, but that is the gist of it).
    • JS 13.2

      2 November 2011 at 1:08 pm

      Remember last election when Key and Helen were asked a question about what they would do if they were gifted a a large sum. Helen said she would put it towards alleviating world poverty and Key said he would buy a private jet.
      • vto 13.2.1

        2 November 2011 at 1:13 pm

        Yep, I see that sort of thing in various occasional people in our circles. Those for whom all business and life is about money – it is all about how much and how easily the money can be made. As opposed to those for whom business and life is about what they are doing and the money is secondary (though still important of course). Key is always solely about the money. It is all he knows. And money is fleeting.
14. tang9 14

    2 November 2011 at 1:35 pm

    The interesting thing with the Horizon live poll was that it was conducted yesterday,  whereas the fairfax poll was conducted over time and included most of last month. While we probably cant rely solely on both it is giving us an indication here that there are positive changes and the recent poll indicates a more rapid rise.  Part of the change might be attributed to the Leaders debate as a lot of people now have changed their view of Goff and the inept answers that key gave
    • aerobubble 14.1

      2 November 2011 at 2:40 pm

      The only thing the commentators had to say about Key was how clean and
      nice his style was. Damning indictment of his passivity. Even his reaction
      to being called a liar was shocking, he actually got out and tried to explain
      and then went on to complain about the attack, like Goff was right to bring
      it up, that there was real truth in the remarks. Key had no comeback to it.
      Key was weak, incapable and Goff disabled him. Key has no heart in the game.
15. Brett Dale 15

    2 November 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Yes please labour people go on ipredict and put your money on Goff being next prime minister, hopefully the odds on Key becoming prime minister will go down.
    • mik e 15.1

      2 November 2011 at 6:31 pm

      BD your so right he will go down
16. infused 16

    2 November 2011 at 4:13 pm

    They have stated it didn’t take in to account the ‘bombshell’ policy.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      2 November 2011 at 4:14 pm

      Who?
17. WARP5 17

    2 November 2011 at 8:22 pm

    3 more years guys, 3 more years!
    • mik e 17.1

      3 November 2011 at 1:02 am

      WARP Just another promise jinxed key won’t be able to keep

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS