Latest Roy Morgan… a bit shit

147 comments on “Latest Roy Morgan… a bit shit ”

• Comments are now closed

1. hush minx 1

   28 February 2013 at 9:30 pm

   On top of the recent TV 3 poll I think I’d wouldn’t be counting my chickens as a green or labor wanna- be minister. And much as I’d like the greens to pick up the slack from labour it really is labour’s responsibility to lift the game. Question is, how long can New Zealander’s afford to wait? Last day of summer. Election is not that far off any more…
2. Bill 2

   28 February 2013 at 9:32 pm

   Analysis? Occam’s fucking Razor. Shearer (naive puppet of the ABC pricks) won. Meaning that Labour lost. Meaning that I lose. You lose. ‘Everyone’ loses. Pretty simple really.
   • Colonial Viper 2.1

     28 February 2013 at 9:34 pm

     Occams Razor must be a bloody cutthroat.
   • crying man 2.2

     28 February 2013 at 9:34 pm

     You’re right about that bill. Good thing they’ve put their careers before disaffected in society.
3. Socialist Paddy 3

   28 February 2013 at 9:37 pm

   I think that we should consult with comrade Trevor Mallard and ask him what he thinks we should do.

   After all he was in charge of the campaign last time which resulted in such a superb result.

   And his tweets over the past couple of days show that he is totally in control of the social media stuff.

   And he has driven the strategy of fecking over a significant minority of caucus just so he and a couple of others can preserve their privilege.

   Let’s see what Trevor suggests.

   And then do the opposite.

   While demanding and engineering his resignation.
4. Belladonna 4

   28 February 2013 at 9:54 pm

   When is Shearer going to do the right thing and stand down? It is so depressing to think the outcome of over 4 million lives and this country is being held to ransome by a small number of large egos.
   • fenderviper 4.1

     28 February 2013 at 10:30 pm

     I doubt Shearer is the stand down type, hell he wasn’t even honest enough with himself to dismiss the idea of being leader. If he lived in the real world he’d never have considered himself ready for the job. The ABC fools have no doubt convinced him he will be the next PM and he’s lapping up their bs to the degree that he’s probably already considering the new colour scheme he wants for the PM’s residence.
   • Grassroots 4.2

     28 February 2013 at 11:24 pm

     I know I asked the same question before 2012 election, however people would like to give our leader a fair go – look what we have got now!
5. The Al1en 5

   28 February 2013 at 10:02 pm

   Another rogue poll.
   • alex 5.1

     1 March 2013 at 12:21 am

     Rather, just another poll full stop. Bouncing around within the margin of error is pretty meaningless, but it is hard to see a positive trend.
6. bad12 6

   28 February 2013 at 10:06 pm

   Lolz that might set a few rectal cavities in the Labour Caucus room all a quiver, probably register on the rickety scale in the basement of the Hive as at least a magnitude 1,

   Such bombshells from Roy will have the whole place rolling off on it’s ball-bearings down onto Lambton Quay…
7. Sanctuary 7

   28 February 2013 at 10:15 pm

   Mallrd says “…My decision to seek Hutt South nomination just reinforced…”

   The question is, can the membership ensure his nomination is rejected? What of the Labour party membership in Hutt South? Get rid of Mallard. it is within your power to do so.
   • bad12 7.1

     28 February 2013 at 10:24 pm

     Lolz course they aint going to purge Mallard, the Blackadder of the NZ Labour Party is going to sit there until He is made Speaker or cancer eats his bowels out…
     • fenderviper 7.1.1

       28 February 2013 at 10:37 pm

       Yep Mallard just wants the chance to prove he knows all the little intricacies and protocols of the house. Like a pedantic train conductor checking everyone has a ticket to ride despite the fact the train is going over a cliff.
       • Beryl Streep 7.1.1.1

         28 February 2013 at 11:56 pm

         +1

         The Standard needs a ‘like’ button, nice analogy.
         • Murray Olsen 7.1.1.1.1

           1 March 2013 at 2:07 am

           I vote for a “like” button.
   • AmaKiwi 7.2

     28 February 2013 at 11:17 pm

     Bluff and bluster but short on brains.

     If Cunliffe becomes party leader before or after the 2014 election, Ducky will be lucky to be appointed special envoy to North Korea.

     See comment #11 below.
8. McFlock 8

   28 February 2013 at 10:36 pm

   I blame TV remotes and 90s liberal parents.

   The slightest setback is a tragedy, and the lack of attention span means an obsession with the latest datapoint rather than overall trends.

   National are not “coasting to a third term”. The tide is slowly ebbing, but this is just another wave.
   • lprent 8.1

     28 February 2013 at 10:49 pm

     GCR. Doesn’t look like a blip to me. The problem is that the GCR is a pretty good forward indicator of subsequent poll trends…
     • McFlock 8.1.1

       28 February 2013 at 11:11 pm

       “GCR”?
       Google fails me with a flood of acronyms. What’s GCR?
       • Beryl Streep 8.1.1.1

         28 February 2013 at 11:47 pm

         GCR is the Galactic Cosmic Ray, the high-energy particles that flow into our solar system from far away in the galaxy. It’s the reason Labour aren’t doing to well in the polls, apparently.
       • Blue 8.1.1.2

         28 February 2013 at 11:53 pm

         Google won’t help you this time. The answer’s in the post. Government Confidence Rating.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1

           28 February 2013 at 11:56 pm

           Awwwww you spoilsport
           • McFlock 8.1.1.2.1.1

             1 March 2013 at 12:28 am

             ha

             Fair enough.
             I’ve never really paid much attention to it (obviously). Just the intended votes.
             Might have a closer look in future – although it’s still lower than when nact scraped in last time.
             • lprent …

               1 March 2013 at 1:13 am

               Rugby world cup – wonderful positioning it so close to an election. Look at where the GCR was in april/may 2011 prior to cup fever.
       • lprent 8.1.1.3

         1 March 2013 at 12:10 am

         Sorry. Government Confidence Rating (GCR). The second graph above..

         Electors were asked: “Generally speaking, do you feel that things in New Zealand are heading in the right direction or would you say things are seriously heading in the wrong direction?”

         The Morgan poll picks it up off the same group at the same time. It has a habit of shifting quite a lot earlier than the actual polls do. Effectively when those polled start to feel disquiet/confidence. At this point it has been moving in the governments direction since November – far too long to be a blip.
         • McFlock 8.1.1.3.1

           1 March 2013 at 12:29 am

           hmm
           • Rogue Trooper 8.1.1.3.1.1

             1 March 2013 at 12:07 pm

             over the moon, and the dish ran away with the spoon
   • bad12 8.2

     28 February 2013 at 10:53 pm

     i blame my comments here on the Standard that Roy likes to fiddle the %’s using the margin of error to mark Party’s up or down at Roy’s whim,

     Roy probably read them and thought he would learn em a valuable lesson…
   • Colonial Viper 8.3

     28 February 2013 at 10:53 pm

     90’s liberal parenting is the problem? Sure…if everyone in this landline poll is aged between 18-21 you may have a point McFlock.

     National are not “coasting to a third term”. The tide is slowly ebbing, but this is just another wave.

     Shit dude, according to your number crunching, Labour is on track to a 38% return on E-day, so you are right, its not National coasting to a 3rd term. It is Labour coasting to victory in 2014.
     • McFlock 8.3.1

       28 February 2013 at 10:57 pm

       nope. My crystal ball is somewhat clouded over. But that means I see no reason to tear at my clothes in grief.
       • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.1

         28 February 2013 at 11:06 pm

         But that means I see no reason to tear at my clothes in grief.

         a lot of people here have expertise in going over polling numbers and trends in great detail. You’re making a mistake if you think that you can write off the dismay expressed here as some kind of overly emotional reaction.

         Good luck to Labour. I hope they start consistently polling between 35% and 38% by the second half of the year.
         • McFlock 8.3.1.1.1

           28 February 2013 at 11:16 pm

           “dismay” is generally “overly emotional”, and frequently gets in the way of doing something about it.
           • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.1.1.1

             28 February 2013 at 11:32 pm

             Sure, if you’re a Vulcan, T-800 or Borg drone, I can understand that having feelings like “dismay” might indeed be disabling.
             • McFlock …

               1 March 2013 at 12:31 am

               lol
               But they don’t feel emotion at all!

               I always figured “dismay” is to grief as “panic” is to fear.
               • emergency mike …

                 1 March 2013 at 2:14 am

                 I think you are confusing “dismay” with “despair”.
                 • McFlock …

                   1 March 2013 at 12:16 pm

                   Well, I always figured that “despair” was the bit after panic and dismay, where one still can’t see a way out so sits in a corner and waits for the inevitable – not acceptance, just a really depressing place to be.

                   As opposed to “desperation”, where one figures one’s probably fucked but tries the million-to-one option simply because it’s rationally the best thing to try at the time.
                   • emergency mike …

                     1 March 2013 at 5:50 pm

                     http://oxforddictionaries.com

                     Dismay: concern and distress caused by something unexpected

                     Despair: the complete loss or absence of hope

                     Note that the definition of ‘dismay’ implies no particular degree of concern and distress. In usage the degree of such is entirely context related. (“He was dismayed to find his toothbrush on the floor.”)

                     Thus, to me, ‘generally “overly emotional”, and frequently gets in the way of doing something about it’ applies to despair rather than dismay.
                   • McFlock …

                     1 March 2013 at 8:15 pm

                     well, would it be possible to view something with “mild dismay”? That would seem to me to be a bit of a contradiction.

                     All very interesting, but I reckon that folk here who are predicting a National victory on the basis of current polling are more despairing than dismayed, in that case.
                   • emergency mike …

                     2 March 2013 at 2:59 am

                     “well, would it be possible to view something with “mild dismay”? That would seem to me to be a bit of a contradiction.”

                     Given the oxford dictionary’s definition one can be dismayed to the same range of degrees as one can be ‘concerned and distressed’. There’s quite a bit of creative licence available there. But I’ll admit that ‘mildly distressed’ is a bit clunky.

                     However, I googled “mild dismay” and “mildly dismayed” (in quotation marks) and found them to be happily in common usage. And as any linguist will tell you, that’s all that matters.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 March 2013 at 1:32 pm

                     Yeah, I never followed that perspective too closely. I think it describes what is, rather than what should be. As soon as we stop striving for the “what should be”, no matter with what effect, then the “what is” goes even farther from “what should be”.
9. Richard Down South 9

   28 February 2013 at 10:36 pm

   Ive said it many times… it depends who they’re asking… if you asked a 1000 people how they will vote, and 900 of them are true and true national supporters who wouldn’t vote anything else even if Key set the NZ flag on fire, then you’ll end up with a skewed poll
   • AmaKiwi 9.1

     28 February 2013 at 10:47 pm

     Do you think pollsters are morons?
     • bad12 9.1.1

       28 February 2013 at 10:54 pm

       Very well paid ones yes…
     • Richard Down South 9.1.2

       1 March 2013 at 1:00 pm

       Id ask how independent the pollsters are, especially when the executive of such a company probably benefit’s from Nationals tax policies
10. AsleepWhileWalking 10

    28 February 2013 at 10:43 pm

    The Greens are pretty steady with their band of loyal supporters : )
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      28 February 2013 at 10:51 pm

      That’s an interesting point. With far fewer people answering “Aye” to the Greens during polling, you would imagine that their relatively low numbers and low response rate would lead to results which bounce around a lot more every single polling cycle. What Richard Down South suggests would happen simply by picking a different patch of voters.

      But it doesn’t tend to.
      • bad12 10.1.1

        28 February 2013 at 10:57 pm

        The Maori Party phoenix like rose from the ashes, i like a giggle, Roy is providing em…
11. AmaKiwi 11

    28 February 2013 at 10:43 pm

    Helen Clark’s advice to Goff, King, and Mallard: “Get a life.”

    Helen replying to Reddit Ask Me Anything: “While you can ask me anything – don’t expect me to dive back into Kiwi political debates! Been there, done that!” she said.

    Charles Chauvel was more blunt: “In order to avoid history repeating it’s time for an honest, open, and overdue assessment of the 2011 election campaign produced Labour’s worst ever electoral result.
    Those responsible for it should make dignified exits.”
12. Craig Glen viper 12

    28 February 2013 at 10:45 pm

    I have the answer people don’t panic. Now lets all hold hands and make a wish that David Shearer is a real Labour Leader who actually gives a shit about sickness beneficiaries and when he speaks he’s not just a bit shit.
    • AmaKiwi 12.1

      28 February 2013 at 10:55 pm

      It’s his political intelligence and skills that worry me. It’s a bruising, demanding profession. Neither he nor Grant Robertson have got it. (Grant for different reasons.)
      • xtasy 12.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 3:25 am

        The charisma of a smelly, damp, wiping cloth, that is the charisma of David Shearer, I am afraid. Sorry dear Labourites, but I cannot help it, every new poll out just proves my point, yet again.

        Have a rethink about leadership, perhaps.
    • Hami Shearlie 12.2

      28 February 2013 at 11:01 pm

      If only wishing could make it so CGV! Unfortunately I think NZ is all out of fairy dust at the moment!
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    28 February 2013 at 11:08 pm

    Every time I’ve seen the Roy Morgan swing that much in a month it’s been a rogue.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      28 February 2013 at 11:14 pm

      You mean the previous high Labour result was the rogue? Or this one?
14. Addison 14

    28 February 2013 at 11:14 pm

    This is a bloody long honeymoon!
15. bad12 15

    28 February 2013 at 11:32 pm

    Roy is of course totally on the money with this poll, i mean the Maori party has jumped a full 2% in the poll in a month,

    This is because the Maori Party have umm ummm aah, because oooh oooh, coz Roy on a whim decided that Slippery’s National Party had to look like the winner perhaps…
16. Addison 16

    28 February 2013 at 11:51 pm

    Just take a look back at the three yyears leading up to the last election. At this time, mid term, Labour were closing. In the last 18 months they started to fall away and in the last 6 months when campaigning began under mallards governance their support fell away fast. Were it not for a rise in the green and NZ first vote in those last 6 months National would have governed alone. History is repeating itself and Nero is fiddling while Rome burns.
    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      1 March 2013 at 12:01 am

      Great Tory import from UK
      • Addison 16.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 8:50 am

        Ever tried commenting on people’s comments rather than the people it makes for a better debate. Oh I forgot your Clark trained!
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1

          1 March 2013 at 8:53 am

          lol tell us again how the salaries in NZ are so great, for political and economic refugees from the UK like yourself

          Then explain why you’d like to see NZ become just like the Tory loving Austerity pushing Bank indebted wreck like your home country.
17. xtasy 17

    1 March 2013 at 3:21 am

    NOT surprised at all – this poll. And listening to Jacinda Ardern ask silly questions to Bennett during Question Time yesterday, well, those many undecided voters, many likely dependent somehow on welfare payments, those fit to work, and those unable to work, will have NO reason to consider Labour as a sympathetic party to vote for.

    Here she went on, trying to challenge Bennett on total beneficiary numbers having gone up rather than down, and thinking she could blame this on “benefit reforms” having failed. Future Focus comes to mind.

    Hey, Ardern, get a life, I fed you highly interesting and exposing info over months, same as a few others, and YOU are NOT using it! You rather focus on the same side shows as this nasty government.

    Future Focus has been and is NASTY, it is more than draconian, and what will follow soon will be criminal, yes in part the new Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill even is ILLEGAL. So you go on about benefit numbers, hinting the government should have made more effort to off-load more off the benefits in times of economic hardship, that does not convince me and others of you being any better than that nasty Paula Bennett.

    You may rate yourself as one of the “sexiest” politicians in NZ, but to me you are NOT “sexy” when it comes to fairness, objectivity, honesty and social justice. Since you strangely survived the re-shuffle, I wonder what ever justified you to do so. It shows that you are in with the right of centre Shearer troopers, and that is NOT giving any sick, disabled, unemployed and dependent sole parent ANY consolation having you as social security spokesperson.

    I am sorry, I look forward to your replacement, same as that of your unconvincing “leader”.
18. kiwicommie 18

    1 March 2013 at 5:00 am

    Don’t discount the New Zealand diaspora in Australia and elsewhere, nearly 20% of New Zealanders live overseas. Roy Morgan ignores 500,000 or so that live overseas and can vote in NZ elections.
    • kiwicommie 18.1

      1 March 2013 at 5:04 am

      The election is also two years away, the only polls that count are those the months or weeks before election day.
      • hush minx 18.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 7:43 am

        Um correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it 2014 the next election?
        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1

          1 March 2013 at 8:41 am

          A normally timed election would happen sometime during November 2014.

          So right on 18 months away.
19. mac1 19

    1 March 2013 at 7:48 am

    If Shearer is to blame, or Mallard, or Goff, King or Robertson etc as commenters claim here on the Standard, that Labour has dropped 4%, are they to blame for the same percentage decrease in the Greens poll result and the larger percentage decrease in NZ First?

    At the same time as the National poll does up, and opposition parties go down, yet the government confidence rating dips.

    Explanations, anyone?
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      1 March 2013 at 8:21 am

      The Labour leadership and strategy team is to blame for the Roy Morgan sitting in exactly the same place as 3 years ago, when Key was starting his first term honeymoon.
      • hush minx 19.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 1:50 pm

        And to me the fact that labour is consistently polling less than it did at the 2008 election after three terms in government is a significant indictment of the then leaders, Phil and Annette, as well add those of today.
      • mac1 19.1.2

        1 March 2013 at 4:19 pm

        So, CV, you’re saying that the decrease in Green and NZF polling is down to Labour as well. That, after all, was my question. Hush minx, you don’t answer my question. If we of the Left are concerned about where the polling support is, then should we not ask why Greens and NZF have also dipped as much as Labour. Can this be blamed on Shearer? If not, who then or what then?

        Alwyn actually got the question at 19.2 but blaming Labour because the Greens and NZF have also suffered by seeming to support Labour doesn’t satisfy me. If they do well, does Labour get the credit?

        The answer lies elsewhere, fellow commenters of the Left. I don’t know what it is, but Shearer et al. bashing is not it either, unless of course you’re in it for another party of the Left.
        • mac1 19.1.2.1

          1 March 2013 at 4:23 pm

          Further to this, if I was a pissed off Labour supporter, would I go to National? Not pygmalion likely. I’d go to the Greens or maybe Mana or NZF. But they’re down too.
          • mac1 19.1.2.1.1

            1 March 2013 at 4:34 pm

            Puddleglum below at #30 seems to share some thinking on this question.
            • hush minx 19.1.2.1.1.1

              1 March 2013 at 8:08 pm

              Yes, it is complex. The greens suffer if the large party on the left fails because it undermines the whole credibility of the left, however unfair that is.

              For those who follow issues more closely, I can quite see a drift from labor to green. In fact that’s me and quite a few of my friends. But if you’re not really following politics, like most people, and if there isn’t cut through in such a way as means something to me then I’ll figure that is either broadly OK, or just won’t care. And tick the winning side.

              So yes, the left have to work together to be credible which is why I am so disappointed when labor attacks the greens like Shane did.
        • xtasy 19.1.2.2

          1 March 2013 at 10:38 pm

          mac1: You have to bear in mind that the largest opposition party is by the public seen as “the opposition”. And since the other opposition parties have more or less been identified as prospective coalition partners in any alternative government, the negative impression that voters may have of Labour and particularly its leadership, does also rub off on the likely opposition parties, as voters will view them less likely to be relevant.

          Perhaps have a read of some of Chris Trotter’s last two posts, and you will see, how it works. Also Brian Edwards wrote an interesting post a day or so ago, clearly stating that the performance of the main opposition party and leader rub off on the rest in opposition.

          That is why this is happening.
          • mac1 19.1.2.2.1

            2 March 2013 at 7:51 pm

            “Also Brian Edwards wrote an interesting post a day or so ago, clearly stating that the performance of the main opposition party and leader rub off on the rest in opposition.”

            I’ve just read all the Edward’s posts for 2013 on Brian Edwards Media, xtasy, and damned if I can find anything near what you say he wrote.

            I also read a Trotter article recently, but was not impressed. Too involved emotionally.

            I do however like Brian Edwards. I would much appreciate a direct reference to the interesting post you speak of.
            • xtasy 19.1.2.2.1.1

              3 March 2013 at 12:39 am

              Quote fr. Brian Edwards blog dated 25 Feb. 2013 (chapter 7 fr. original):
              “In an earlier post I argued that political polls tend to be self-fulfilling on the basis that people are reluctant to vote for a persistently low-polling party or leader. Our natural instinct is to back winners. The high-rating leader is also able to bask in the warm glow of his poll success while his low-rating opponent has to engage in an unconvincing dismissal of the poll result and an equally unconvincing defence of his and his party’s performance that presumably led to it.”

              And quote from chapter 10 I think:
              “And here’s the main point: Shearer’s future will be determined by the polls.”

              http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2013/02/john-key-on-41-david-shearer-on-10-that-cant-be-right-can-it/#sthash.OSEDkXpx.dpuf

              While Brian Edwards does not directly mention the Greens suffering due to the negative and weak image that Shearer has, one can read between the line that Brian does consider Labour as the leading opposition party as relevant and crucial for prospective pollsters and voters to judge about their capabilities to form an alternative government. That also applies to Labour’s leader.

              Just consider his sensible comment like this: “Our natural instinct is to back winners.”

              On that line, thought and logic, would voters be inclined to “naturally” want to pick parties as potential government supporting or coalition members associated with “losers”?
              • Colonial Viper …

                3 March 2013 at 1:17 am

                Yep. We back pollies like we back race horses. We put our money behind those we think will win.
              • mac1 …

                3 March 2013 at 9:19 am

                Two responses, xstasy. You have changed your ground from Edwards clearly stating that the performance of the labour party rubs off on the rest of the opposition to “one can read between the line.”

                My point is that a poor performance from a Party leader does not necessarily lead to lower polling from other opposition parties. In fact, polls have shown great increases percentage wise to the other parties as the Greens in particular picked up.

                Commenters here have stated that they will leave Labour’s ranks to vote for other opposition parties as they became disgruntled. That kind of thinking should lead to an increase in opposition parties’ polling.

                But this Morgan poll time it did not. All the opposition parties went down.

                My second response. We must discover the reason for that, even if it be a ‘rogue poll’. I suspect it is otherwise, but don’t know.

                In fact, I think it’s dangerous to blame Shearer for this poll results, otherwise than they might apply to Labour’s polling. That is lazy thinking, self-serving and/or unhelpful. We need the truth as much as we can define it, with clear thinking.

                If voters only went and voted by backing winners, there would never be a change of government. There would have been no pick up in support for Helen Clark. The Labour party has been here before, as in 1990. The National party was in a worse position in 2002 under English.

                Personally, I vote according to policy and principles, not by backing a winner. I enjoyed winning in 1972 hugely, and in 1984, ’87, ’99. ’02, ’05. The only winner that I back, if I were to back a winner, are the ordinary punters for whom it is so important to have the best horse win.

                I am not sure that voters who not so caught up as we are in day to day politics, actually see the opposition as an entity, but see the constituent parties involved instead. Near election time, or when the media pundits begin to seriously consider MMP coalition options, then voters might reflect on who is involved in possible coalitions. Even then, the thinking tended to be along the lines of being put off by minor coalition parties who since they are not big, obviously have a lot more to off put the average voter.

                I don’t believe that 91000 voters more than voted for National in the election, as Hooton described it on Natradio recently and if I remember the figure correctly of course, would have transferred over to National and therefore deserted all opposition parties because of Shearer.

                If Hooton and the Morgan poll is correct, then we of the Left have some truths to discover.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  3 March 2013 at 9:40 am

                  Commenters here have stated that they will leave Labour’s ranks to vote for other opposition parties as they became disgruntled. That kind of thinking should lead to an increase in opposition parties’ polling.

                  But this Morgan poll time it did not. All the opposition parties went down.

                  Bet you it was because the Left inclined non-vote/no opinion went up.

                  There are a lot of pissed of core Labour voters out there who will prefer to stay at home rather than vote for the loopy tree hugging Greens.

                  If that was the case, the only party who comes ahead % wise is National.
                  • mac1 …

                    3 March 2013 at 10:37 am

                    CV, now that makes some sense to me, as did Puddleglum further down the page.

                    Are we actually able to quantify the left-inclined non-vote/no opinion? I know it was high last election when we could have a dash at quantifying that non-vote.

                    Also, have the pollsters changed their methodology in the way they treat a don’t know/don’t care response? Some commenter made an assertion that it was 80% of all polled but the number is not published by the pollster.

                    If the polls are not reflecting that core of pissed off labour voters as you say, then that is one of the truths that Labour has to address- how to revitalise the 2011 non-vote.

                    But your explanation, CV, does not explain why the Greens, NZ First and Mana also took a dive as opposed to National’s upturn.

                    Are NZers being conservative? Along the lines of “We know we are in tough times and therefore stick with the govt we know especially if, for Labour voters, the Labour party is not showing strongly for what ever reasons.”

                    Those reasons too are important.

                    Change will come if enough voters are desperate enough for change. Have we reached that tipping point yet? It is often said that voters vote Governments out, not governments in. Is this applying- not enough voters pissed off with Key’s government?

                    Puddleglum lower down refers to the various core areas where voters place importance where obviously all the opposition parties are nor scoring well enough.

                    Are the voters saying that voters don’t like the alternative enough?

                    Lastly, how much was that desire ‘to give the other side a turn’ a factor in 2008, then given continuance in 2011, still applying today?
                    • xtasy …

                      7 March 2013 at 11:56 am

                      mac1 : Thanks for your further comments above.

                      Blaming Shearer was not done light-heartedly and short-sightedly by me. He has been held up as going to change the polls upwards soon for a year now, but it has not happened. Hence in reality, he is becoming more of a liability as “leader” of less than mediocre capabilities in that role.

                      As for the home staying voters, this is what I have been looking at for a long time now. And there are many disgruntled former Labour voters, and there will in some cases also be disgruntled Green voters.

                      Mana has its own challenges, and the media have done all to condemn it to the margins as an “alternative Maori Party”, “Hone’s Party” or the “loony lefty activist supported party”.

                      I am afraid that despite of all good will of many in Mana, it will be a missed opportunity party. Hence for me the best idea and solution is to create a NEW Left Party, taking position where traditional Labour values were and should be again, and to also open up to progressive, environmentally friendly, manufacturing supporting and constructive smart politics for a secure future for NZ.

                      They could well get 15 to 20 or more per cent (many non voters) if they organise, campaign and run their party well. That is by next election, I mean.
                    • mac1 …

                      7 March 2013 at 6:26 pm

                      Reply to xstasy’s comment below.

                      Starting up a new left party? A series of failed options so far and a current (Mana) which is burdened with a leader given to silly statements. I have no energy for that. I’ll stay with Labour since I have seen them through from the Kirk years- my first Conference in 1973. (Got in trouble then as a young long hair who was most upset by a dodgy procedural move by Arthur Faulkner and a late ring-in to the Foreign Affairs policy remits committee. Now those guys were right wing, at least socially and in foreign policy.

                      Best of luck with that. I’d have thought that the Greens were an alternative, but MMP allows for a leftish house of many mansions, so long as the threshold is reached and especially also if the non-voters can be re-energised.
                    • Anne …

                      7 March 2013 at 6:50 pm

                      Ahh Mac1, I remember that 1073 conference! My first one too. Feelings were running high especially over the Vietnam War. I remember the long haired students of both genders (including Helen Clark) who happened to be sitting in front of me. They repeatedly moved motions to have our soldiers brought home immediately – yes its all happened before folks only in a different part of the world. As a newcomer I didn’t know which way to vote so didn’t vote at all. Got some filthy looks from my peers including Helen Clark. We later became friends. 🙂
                    • Anne …

                      7 March 2013 at 6:52 pm

                      Ahh Mac1, I remember that 1973 conference! My first one too. Feelings were running high especially over the Vietnam War. I remember the long haired students of both genders (including Helen Clark) who happened to be sitting in front of me. They repeatedly moved motions to have our soldiers brought home immediately – yes its all happened before folks only in a different part of the world. As a newcomer I didn’t know which way to vote so didn’t vote at all. Got some filthy looks from my peers including Helen Clark. We later became friends. 🙂
                    • mac1 …

                      7 March 2013 at 7:28 pm

                      Anne, the motion that got me really going was advocating the conversion of the army into a civil defence force. After the Vietnam War, and as a pacifist because of that war, that well and truly met my beliefs.

                      I can also remember being threatened with ejection for circulating a petition around the floor of the conference which was a no-no unbeknown to me. I also remember a very sick looking Norman Kirk shrunken inside his too large shirt collar, walking with a stick.

                      In those days, incredible as it may seem, I belonged to an ordinary branch that had 1500 members.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      7 March 2013 at 7:40 pm

                      1500 members is very roughly a quarter of the total financial membership strength of Labour today nationwide, excluding affiliates.
                    • McFlock …

                      7 March 2013 at 7:55 pm

                      that must be all shearer’s fault, too
                    • Anne …

                      7 March 2013 at 8:04 pm

                      I can also remember being threatened with ejection for circulating a petition around the floor of the conference which was a no-no unbeknown to me.

                      Whoever told you that was talking a load of old cobblers. What’s the difference between a delegate’s petition and candidates running around lobbying delegates which used to happen all the time and – as we know – still happens.

                      I also remember a very sick looking Norman Kirk shrunken inside his too large shirt collar, walking with a stick.

                      That was 1974. I was convinced he would fall over dead at any moment. Such a courageous prime minister and to see him like that was tragic. As was the case with so many others, he was the reason I joined the Labour Party in the first place. And yes… I came from an electorate that had between 1200 and 1500 members. Every year we had to knock on all their doors to collect the annual subs – $5 per member I think it was.

                      I must ask you:

                      I remember a tallish, skinnyish fellow with dark (maybe black) long hair and a small beard who was always leaping up and down wanting to have a say in just about every remit. Was it you? 😛
                    • mac1 …

                      7 March 2013 at 10:20 pm

                      Anne, no, ’twas another. I have never spoken on the floor at Annual Conference. I’m of average height, more a prop than a winger, have (still) brown hair and apart from all that….no.

                      The bloke who tried it on with me was an organiser, and an older delegate from my LEC had to mollify this codger. He was in his rights, but didn’t like long hairs.

                      CV, very few join organisations of any ilk, especially the young. They’re too busy, working all sorts of hours. They’ve been told for too long that politics is a sorry business, that politicians are all corrupt, that one person can’t make a difference, etc etc etc. They have been taught to be selfish. They have been misled by the corrupt themselves who do not want an engaged, vigorous, questioning, ethically minded, outward-looking youth.

                      Why do so many people not vote?
                    • xtasy …

                      8 March 2013 at 12:49 am

                      mac1 – at 10.20 pm on 07.03.:

                      “Why do so many people not vote?”

                      Because they feel disempowered, irrelevant, treated with disregard, contempt even by the systems in place, treating them as mere “numbers”, only “using” them when it suits their agenda, because the parties never put into practice much of what they claim to bring in on programs.

                      Also the whole world is more interconnected than ever before, controlled by information, transport, business and financial systems and networks, that force everyone to put own concerns, thoughts and interests behind the forces operating and upholding the impersonal systems in place.

                      Even the internet is more “controlling” than actually “liberating”, and what would you do if something brings it down for days, weeks perhaps, you would not be seen or heard or read here.

                      Work in office towers, on assembly lines, factory ships processing fish, at meatworks, even in supermarkets makes people numb and slowly robot like and not human anymore, despite of health and safety.

                      There is just the freedom of escapism left, and that is what many younger ones prefer to indulge in, rather than challenge a system they see as too powerful.

                      And political parties of size are all revolving around agendas around narrow “centric” spectrums, as they see themselves powerless to change the systems in place. So they rather work within them, same as a media catering mass produced crap.

                      Welcome to 2013!
    • alwyn 19.2

      1 March 2013 at 11:13 am

      Well the Greens and New Zealand First both seem to be supporting Labour.
      Perhaps people look at the Labour party with Shearer, Mallard, Goff, King and Robertson and take the view that anyone who wants to help them get into power must be totally nuts as well?
      It’s an explanation anyway.
      The same would apply to the confidence rating. You might not have great confidence in National but it’s hard to see how you could have any confidence in a party that, if Chris Trotter has any credibility, is in the process of tearing itself apart.
    • Addison 19.3

      1 March 2013 at 6:32 pm

      If you look at the trend over say the last 6 polls both voter intention and confidence in the government are up. In this last poll there is a dip but from quite a high point.
20. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 20

    1 March 2013 at 8:15 am

    The government is as popular as the day it was elected in 2008.

    I predict:

    1. Wailing that the polls are rigged

    2. Vague claims (supported only by anecdote) that “people are waking up”

    3. Loud calls to move further left by people who have not noticed that the Mana party has nearly no measurable support in the polls.
    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      1 March 2013 at 8:25 am

      Yep, time to move to the Left, you know, govern on behalf of the people, not on behalf of international financial capital.

      It’s a radical idea.
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 20.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 8:30 am

        That would see Labour sink to Mana Party levels in the polls.
        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1

          1 March 2013 at 8:37 am

          Why? NZers like socialised government and socialised government services. A lot.
          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 20.1.1.1.1

            1 March 2013 at 8:38 am

            That must be why the Mana Party is doing so well in the polls and the National Party are doing so badly.

            Oh, hang on…
            • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1.1.1

              1 March 2013 at 8:43 am

              Oh fuck mate you’re right, Mana and Labour suddenly be exactly the same!
              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                1 March 2013 at 8:49 am

                Oh, so you want them to move left, just not very far.

                OK. Good luck.

                BTW: any idea why the National Party is so unprecedentedly popular despite being only a little but left wing?
                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                  1 March 2013 at 8:54 am

                  “little bit left wing”
                • vto …

                  1 March 2013 at 8:59 am

                  I have no idea why this government remains so popular, but it may be similar to reasons various other regimes have been popular in the past, like, um, that German party in the 1930’s.
                  • Addison …

                    1 March 2013 at 9:11 am

                    Were they not Socialists!
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      1 March 2013 at 11:53 am

                      National socialists, in fact 🙂
                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                    1 March 2013 at 9:32 am

                    O no you dit-ten!
                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                      1 March 2013 at 9:33 am

                      that German party in the 1930′s.

                      O no you dit-ten!
                • Colonial Viper …

                  1 March 2013 at 9:00 am

                  National unprecedentedly popular? As popular as what? The plague?

                  Of course the whole ediface relies on one man.

                  Steven Joyce 😀

                  (well him and English)
              • aerobubble …

                1 March 2013 at 1:27 pm

                yeah. Labour, in the final week of Goffs election decide to resonate with the Green’s anti-asset sales. They failed to sell the tax free threshold, or the CGT, or anything they were doing, because all I remember is the Greens anti-asset ads.

                And then when Dunne holds the key to asset sales, Labour could not find the strength to say Dunne you’re Done, we cant work with you if you think National have a mandate to sell assets, when you yourself ran on a anti-asset sale position.

                So Labour failed because it failed to sell its policies, it failed to differentiate itself from the Greens, it failed to fight its corner, and leaves people feeling bored when they support Labour, atleast with Key you can feel strength in destroying the kiwi way of life, the economy, environment and future.
21. Addison 21

    1 March 2013 at 9:09 am

    So what will the next 18 months bring. Labour will still be debating the leadership of Labour. Meanwhile the Government will have sold the assets and assets sails will be forgotten. They will then spend the money on things that will be popular schools hospitals, things Labour will feel obliged to oppose! Or they will bleat that National are trying to buy the election andNational will romp home. National have made the unpopular Descisions early in their term and will make the popular ones in the last year running upto election day. Bets on National governing alone this time helped by no tea party scandal!
22. higherstandard 22

    1 March 2013 at 9:14 am

    Who gives a fuck ?

    Whether one or the other of Labour or National get in makes no difference to life in general, go for a swim read a good book, listen to some music, have a walk in the great outdoors and spend less time wittering on blogs…. mens sana in corpore sano and all that.
    • Rogue Trooper 22.1

      1 March 2013 at 12:17 pm

      elan
23. infused 23

    1 March 2013 at 9:35 am

    “I’m not really in the mood to piss around with analysis tonight. You’ve heard me moan about the state of Labour enough lately.”

    No, please go on 🙂
24. Rob 24

    1 March 2013 at 11:36 am

    So the Greens are down too, and have been consistently flatter than Labour also, but that’s Labour’s fault too, right Zetetic et al?
25. ad 25

    1 March 2013 at 11:43 am

    Presumably people have seen the Chris Trotter article yesterday in which he names the names on precisely who are the attack dogs, who was rewarded as a result.

    Strangely there seems to be some correlation between a vacillating support for Labour in the polls, and completely betraying the Labour membership to have any meaningful democratic input into the leadership.

    So the Shearer leadership consistently screw over its own membership, and people really do get the message, and it shows up! Fancy that!
    • Anne 25.1

      1 March 2013 at 12:24 pm

      Lets name the pack members in alphabetical order:

      Jacinda Ardern =- aha… that explains her ‘controlled’ fury following Chauvel’s valedictory speech.
      Clare Curran = no surprises there.
      Kris Faafoi = doing what he was told to do?
      Darien Fenton = very disappointed. Always saw Darien as someone who was open and fair in
      her dealings.
      Phil Twyford = ditto.
      Megan Woods = ?

      Special place for Mr Fink, also known as Chris Hipkins:

      Mr Hipkins youthful countenance became an ugly mask of rage as he railed against the proposition that, to avoid a contest in Labour’s new electoral college, the party leader must be endorsed by sixty percent-plus-one of his caucus colleagues.
      • Winston Smith 25.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 2:02 pm

        In Hipkins defence he seems to be one of the few MPs landing hits on the government.
        • Anne 25.1.1.1

          1 March 2013 at 3:17 pm

          Don’t think the behaviour has been confined to members of the Labour caucus. It trickled quickly down to LEC level. Telling tales out of school was and probably still is occurring. A trick deployed a couple of times in my neck of the woods was to send an email requesting viewpoints (supposedly for a general discussion that never occurred) and I responded to them in all honesty – assuming my views would remain within the confines of the LEC. Then finding further down the track that in fact they had been passed on to a memeber of the ABC club.

          Sadly Winston Smith is probably correct. For as long as they continue to behave in this current infantile manner, they will not be regarded by sufficient voters as an alternative government.
          • Anne 25.1.1.1.1

            1 March 2013 at 3:27 pm

            Oops – this comment is supposed to be a reply to Winston Smith @ 28.

            The edit function can’t come soon enough but no criticism of Lynn. I don’t know how he does it all…
        • xtasy 25.1.1.2

          1 March 2013 at 10:41 pm

          Winston Smith: He may do so, and fair enough, but that does not make him a fair player within a “team”, as what the Labour caucus should be seen and working like. Sometimes “bullies” run the show, even showing some “success” in performance.
26. Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 26

    1 March 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Those bad bad pollsters!

    Dear Darien Fenton should get them up against the wall, line she did with the Service worker at the Ellerslie Conference!

    Perhaps that boy Hipkings should scream at the pollsters, like he did to the membrship at the Ellerslie Conference.
    • Te Reo Putake 26.1

      1 March 2013 at 1:28 pm

      Those things never happened, so what’s your point?
      • Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 26.1.1

        1 March 2013 at 2:01 pm

        I was there, sweetie.

        I and hundreds more saw Hipkin’s “performance” at the mike.
        I’ve had the Darien story from members who were there who I trust.
        • Te Reo Putake 26.1.1.1

          1 March 2013 at 2:20 pm

          Yeah right. I was there too and Hipkins did not scream. He wasn’t a happy camper, but he did not scream. And the ‘members you trust’ are clearly having you on and given that you have no evidence to back up your ludicrous claim that Darien abused members of the union she is a life member of, you really should withdraw and apologise.
          • Colonial Viper 26.1.1.1.1

            1 March 2013 at 3:06 pm

            You are correct, Hipkins did not “scream”, but he did raise an angry, entitled, voice towards the membership. I imagine he knows exactly who I am too, but I’m not going to .

            Re: Fenton and the Service Workers, I was not in on that meeting, but heard immediately afterwards from some people who were there and quite angry and disappointed with her attitude.
            • Colonial Viper 26.1.1.1.1.1

              1 March 2013 at 3:07 pm

              going to hold back on relaying what I saw and heard.
              • Anne …

                1 March 2013 at 7:21 pm

                Why CV?

                There’s not a hell of a lot they can do to you now – surely.

                I’ve revealed what happened in my neck of the woods (see 25.1.1.1)

                It’s of no consequence because I’ve already been sent to the local equivalent of Siberia.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  1 March 2013 at 9:21 pm

                  Ain’t nothing wrong with Siberia, Anne.

                  That’s where the Soviets kept their best military units at the start of WWII.
                  • Anne …

                    1 March 2013 at 9:33 pm

                    It’s also where they built their equivalent to Concentration Camps. 👿
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      1 March 2013 at 9:53 pm

                      Yes that too…
                    • xtasy …

                      1 March 2013 at 10:48 pm

                      Anne: And others, consider talking to Cunliffe and others, to start a TRUE LABOUR PARTY perhaps. Just an idea. Why keep banging your head against the walls?
            • Te Reo Putake 26.1.1.1.1.2

              1 March 2013 at 3:29 pm

              Cheers, CV. EBRL has claimed a couple of times that Darien abused SFWU members. The first time the claim was made I checked with mates in the Servos who were at the meeting and they confirmed there was robust debate, but it was comradely and there was no abuse from anyone, let alone Darien. I can fully understand if the members were disappointed or even angry about whatever position Darien was taking, but to claim she got ‘them up against the wall’ is rubbish.

              And re: Hipkins, he was definitely on the defensive, as were a few of the MP’s. But, actually, the contributions from all members who spoke during conference were, for the most part, well reasoned and not OTT.
              • Anne …

                1 March 2013 at 3:38 pm

                I agree with that analysis. During the conference itself the contributions were reasoned and polite on both sides. It was commendable and I left feeling very proud of Labour. It was afterwards that it all turned OTT – on the part of the Shearer/ABC faction. Reason and commonsense flew out the window and hasn’t yet returned.
                • Anne …

                  1 March 2013 at 5:11 pm

                  It’s appropriate to add to the above that I didn’t learn what was going on behind the scenes (ie. the harassment and bullying of some delegates) until after the conference was over. Interesting that no-one tried it on me. Think they might have known it would be a waste of time. 🙂
27. Joe Bloggs 27

    1 March 2013 at 1:48 pm

    My sources assure me that Trevor Mallard has a very cunning plan…*-0
    • xtasy 27.1

      1 March 2013 at 10:49 pm

      Tell me, what is his cunning plan?
28. Winston Smith 28

    1 March 2013 at 2:01 pm

    There are a number of reasons why Labour is doing so poorly (or rather not poorly but not making headway) and why National is rating as highly as it is.

    At the moment no one thinks Labour could govern, they cannot even seem to run their own party so how do you think they would run a country?
    – Short answer is they cannot so you cannot expect people to want them in power.

    National on the other hand appears to be united and while some MPs (Hekia you should fall on your sword) are letting the team down on the whole National seem competent and mature, in comparison to Labour.

    The solution to this is in Labours own hands, whether the can do what they need to do is another story,
29. js 29

    1 March 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Chris Trotter’s vindictive piece today will have those in the Beehive smiling. Whose side is he on?
    • quartz 29.1

      1 March 2013 at 2:27 pm

      The side of Labour Party members.
    • Colonial Viper 29.2

      1 March 2013 at 2:41 pm

      Curran is part of an insider team happy to dish it out to ordinary party members like myself, and even to their own “colleagues”.

      I suspect it isn’t Trotter’s photo next to the definition of “vindictive” but rather a team photo of the Labour caucus ABCs.
    • xtasy 29.3

      1 March 2013 at 10:52 pm

      js: He is NOT a member, he clearly states, he considers himself to be though on the left and have interests in policies supporting the left. So guess, what, maybe he has a point. Labour has for quite some time only been “left” in words, few believed.
      • McFlock 29.3.1

        2 March 2013 at 12:56 am

        Ah, Trotter.
        Voice of the Left when we agree, MSM Sellout when we don’t.
30. Puddleglum 30

    1 March 2013 at 4:25 pm

    The Roy Morgan survey of New Zealanders’ views of the most important issues makes for interesting reading.

    If you look down to the detailed ‘issues’ under economic and social, many of the leading economic issues (except the first) are distinctly concerns of the left (very generally): poverty/inequality; unemployment/jobs; cost of living.

    Many of the ‘social issues’ are distinctly concerns of the right (very generally): crime/law and order, breakdown of the family; drugs; etc.

    Yet, economic issues are overwhelmingly the main issues according to New Zealanders (49.4 vs. 20.1%). Environmental issues are rated the main issue in New Zealand by only 6.9%.

    My guess is that National is seen as better at the first economic issue (general handling of the economy/financial crisis/recession/etc.) but perhaps being criticised for the other economic issues (unemployment and inequality) but then also ‘cleans up’ on the social issues.

    The picture is different when the main issues facing the world are concerned. Still the economic issues are in the lead (43.2%) but followed by 15.5% for social issues being the main issue and 14.5% saying environmental issues are the main issue for the world.
    • xtasy 30.1

      1 March 2013 at 10:56 pm

      Puddleglum: Yes, if you look at the media in this country, that has for years now become a fan brigade for John Key, turned rather rightist, that is dominated by private print and broadcasting media, where even remnants of “state” public media try desperately to lower themselves to commercial level interests and superficial, trivial rich “info tainment”, are you surprised at all, that so many actually vote and poll the way they do?

      I am not. Now advertising and commercial focused broadcasting is not done frivolously and without effect and reason. Why would any enterprise or even political lobby group “advertise”, if it would not have any effect?

      It does work, same as Goebbles convinced a lot of Germans that Hitler was an honest and great guy!
31. Treetop 31

    1 March 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Does a poll have to use reliability and validity like research has to, to avoid an inaccurate result?
    • Colonial Viper 31.1

      1 March 2013 at 9:22 pm

      nope. The methodology is usually secret and the base data never published or made available for scrutiny.
32. Yes 32

    2 March 2013 at 11:18 am

    The problem with left is they just make things up
    • Colonial Viper 32.1

      2 March 2013 at 11:33 am

      Yes and we the Left could make stuff up much better if we could afford the corporate bills from Crosby Textor, Colenso and Saatchi

Links to post

1. Polling merry-go-round « The Standard: posted on 20 March 2013 at 8:57 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS