Metiria’s gamble pays off in latest poll

Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, July 31st, 2017 - 157 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, labour, polls - Tags: , , , , ,

Having spent two weeks clobbering Metiria Turei it must be vexing for the angry right-wing pundit machine that The Greens were up – to their highest level ever – in last night’s Colmar Brunton poll. Excellent news for The Greens, and an indication (though mind that margin of error) that there could be a real appetite for a Corbyn-style political revolution this election.

There is however no real sign in the poll that the Left’s vote has grown over all. The Greens gain was Labour’s loss, as widely and breathlessly reported – Labour bleeds while Greens profit from Metiria Turei’s ‘fraud bomb’. That’s the view from those still invested in FPP horse-races, in MMP there is no effective change in the left-right balance.

I think Labour and The Greens have it right. Labour should keep aiming for the center-left, and The Greens go harder. If Metiria’s gamble mobilises non-voters it will grow the left share over all.

157 comments on “Metiria’s gamble pays off in latest poll”

  1. chris73 1

    🙂

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

    There is however no real sign in the poll that the Left’s vote has grown over all.

    The Left vote increased by 1%. Maybe, just maybe, the effect you mention in the last line might account for that 🙂

    • a 1% increase on a 3% margin of error (the rough level for a 39/61 proposition like “what is the level of support for Labour and the Greens when taken together?”) is reasonable to characterize as “not a real sign.” It’s more like a coin flip as to whether your support has actually gone up at all, but it’s better than nothing.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1

        Yes, reading tea-leaves is pointless; weeping over them even more so, especially when your strategy has to involve getting the vote out.

        • Actually, “reading tea leaves” in polling is important, it’s just not as important as getting the vote out, as you say. For instance, I expect if Roy Morgan is polling right now, that there will definitely be a Labour Party drop from Little’s dumb comments about offering to resign.

          The point I was making is that you can’t over-emphasize reading polls, because often what they tell you are things like “well, there’s about a 60% chance we actually improved our vote looking at this one poll. We can tell you for sure in another month.” They are an important part of the picture, but just as important is “does our base feel energised?” (the Greens’ one definitely does now) or “are we hearing support for is from the public?” and “do people like our policies?”

          If Labour actually gets that it’s slowly-slowly cautious centrist tactics aren’t working and come up with something a bit more rhetorically agressive that still fits their slightly-left-of-centre positioning, then they have a chance to share the political oxygen with the Greens going forward. If all they’ve got is circling the wagons around Andrew, then they’re just going to have to hold on to the election and hope that the Greens and New Zealand First can hand them the Government.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1

            something a bit more rhetorically aggressive that still fits their slightly-left-of-centre positioning

            We hardly need tea-leaves to tell us that passion is an asset.

  3. red-blooded 3

    We can’t dress this up – the Meteria move hasn’t motivated non-voters, it’s simply damaged Labour. Nobody wins this way: the Greens need Labour in order to go into government and Labour is bleeding. That’s partly the result of people drifting from Labour to the Greens and partly the effect of scaring off soft National voters who might now look at NZF (who will be happy to scoop them in).

    It was awful to hear the Morning Report interview with Andrew Little about the offer to step down. It seems like a pretty poor decision to go public with that. I do sympathise with his frustration about being starved for oxygen in the last few weeks though.

    In some ways I admire Meteria’s recent actions but I also see it as poorly judged in terms of MOU strategy.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

      the Meteria move hasn’t motivated non-voters, it’s simply damaged Labour.

      On the one hand, you’re reading tea-leaves, and on the other, you can’t seem to report the pattern correctly.

      The centre cannot hold!

      Edit: “to go public”. He answered a question. How would your answer have differed? “No comment”? “I’m not going to lie to you”?

    • Anne 3.2

      I do sympathise with his frustration about being starved for oxygen in the last few weeks though.

      I’ve spent the last 6 weeks watching the 6pm news on both TV1 and TV3 and waiting for the Labour take on the political stories. Plenty of ‘TV equivalent column inches’ from English, Bennett, Joyce et al but rarely a peep out of Labour. It was as if they had been banished to the hills. When they have occurred it has been a 4-5 sec sound bite from Andrew Little. Not much one can say in a few seconds. It’s been nagging at me… what the hell is going on? Has word gone down the line “ignore Labour don’t give them oxygen”? Until the Turei affair it was the same with the Greens. The news teams would deny it til the cows came home but that is exactly what it looks like to me.

      • Karen 3.2.1

        Same with the Herald. Labour have released a lot of policy over the past few weeks but there has been minimal coverage at best.

        If Metiria hadn’t told her personal story would the Green’s policy of increasing benefits got much coverage? Maybe not.

        The problem is that the MSM are not interested in policy, they just want sensation. There is also a rightwing bias, but there always has been in print media. TV is much more rightwing than it was 10 years ago. Hoskings is particularly bad on TVNZ and the political journalists at TV3 are only interested in gotcha politics.

        I think Labour will need some really bold policy if they want to get cut through.

        • rhinocrates 3.2.1.1

          Bold policy AND…

          People who misunderstand public relations are baffled when some nice declarations and a calculatedly anodyne slogan don’t have immediate miraculous effect. What they forget is that political credibility, pardon the alliteration, depends on a record of courage, competence and commitment. It takes time for the perception of credibility to become fixed.

          When you’ve wrecked it as thoroughly as Labour has, it takes a lot longer.

          Metiria made it clear that she has a personal stake and commitment. That connected with people. It’s a lesson that the Labour Party could learn.

    • Karen 3.3

      Her name is Metiria. If you can’t remember by yourself, then you could just look at the post.

    • We can’t dress this up – the Meteria move hasn’t motivated non-voters, it’s simply damaged Labour.

      If anyone’s damaged Labour it’s Labour by being too much of the same old.

      In some ways I admire Meteria’s recent actions but I also see it as poorly judged in terms of MOU strategy.

      It was fine. The problem was Labour’s response to it as they catered to the National voters who aren’t going to shift.

    • Norfolk Traveller 3.5

      “We can’t dress this up – the Meteria move hasn’t motivated non-voters, it’s simply damaged Labour.”
      Of course it has. Labour has bled support from those who support criminal activity to the Greens, just as they are bleeding their traditional voter base to NZF.

      “It was awful to hear the Morning Report interview with Andrew Little about the offer to step down. It seems like a pretty poor decision to go public with that. ”
      Actually I have found some grudging admiration for the man. His comments were honest and heartfelt. That is a very unusual trait in a politician, and a refreshing change from what Metiria has been displaying.

      • Of course it has. Labour has bled support from those who support criminal activity to the Greens, just as they are bleeding their traditional voter base to NZF.

        Oh, look at that. A RWNJ is lying – again.

        The Greens don’t support criminal activity and they support laws that force a fairly large number of people into committing crimes even less.

        His comments were honest and heartfelt. That is a very unusual trait in a politician, and a refreshing change from what Metiria has been displaying.

        The hypocrisy is strong in this one.

        • srylands 3.5.1.1

          What on earth is a “RWNJ”?

        • Norfolk Traveller 3.5.1.2

          “The Greens don’t support criminal activity…”
          Yes, they do. There has been no condemnation from them about Metiria’s criminal past, indeed Metiria herself has tacitly condoned current beneficiaries rorting the system. You might support their stance, but you can’t deny it.

          • Bill 3.5.1.2.1

            She hasn’t condoned anything. She has condemned a system that necessitates law breaking among those it’s supposed to be offering security to.

            You care to list the names of all those politicians who are out right condemning Metiria for not telling WINZ the truth all those years ago? Thought not.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.5.1.2.2

            Yes, they do.

            No they don’t.

            There has been no condemnation from them about Metiria’s criminal past, indeed Metiria herself has tacitly condoned current beneficiaries rorting the system.

            1. That’s because there’s realisation that it’s the law that is wrong.
            2. No she hasn’t. What’s she did was point out that it’s impossible to live on the current welfare system and that it thus forces people to break the law.

            Consider this: In the 15th century a law was passed preventing commoners from buying fine woven cloth. Adam Smith notes, in his Wealth of Nations, that by his time the quality of woven cloth had increased so much that the quality that was specified in the law simply didn’t exist any more – it wasn’t good enough. In effect, everybody was breaking the law.

            Would you consider this a just law? Would you demand that the manufacturers produce poor quality cloth so that you wouldn’t break the law? Or would break the law?

            Same applies here. The law is wrong because it forces people to break it.

            You might support their stance, but you can’t deny it.

            Just did.

      • Bill 3.5.2

        Labour has bled support from those who support criminal activity…

        You got a list of names there? Anything at all? Maybe even just the name of a single politician?

        No.

        You don’t have a damned thing beyond twisting peoples’ condemnation of a social security system that compels people to be law breakers in order to survive, into some bullshit about condoning the breaking of laws.

        • Norfolk Traveller 3.5.2.1

          Support has shifted from Labour to the Greens since Metiria confessed to fraud.

          • Bill 3.5.2.1.1

            Yeah, whatever. And what has that got to do with “those who support criminal activity” that you claimed existed and that you claimed were shifting their support from NZ Labour to the Greens?

            Or is that last comment to be viewed as you rowing back from the idiotic claim of your original comment?

            • Norfolk Traveller 3.5.2.1.1.1

              “And what has that got to do with “those who support criminal activity” that you claimed existed and that you claimed were shifting their support from NZ Labour to the Greens?”

              Support has shifted from Labour to the Greens since Metiria confessed to fraud.

              Fairly self evident to me. If these voters had any concern for adhering to the law, they would not shift their vote to a party that supports fraud.

              • lprent

                Yeah, I can see how you’d also still be whimpering about the people who destroyed their property rights by helping slaves escape being abused, exploited and raped. That is just the kind of law abiding citizen you are. An apologist for rape, torture, and brutal oppression because some idiots passed a law. Mind you I can see you as simply being a slave owner…

                Anyone is permitted to break laws. After all WINZ staff have never been known to break the laws and rules at state that they must offer their ‘clients’ full disclosure about the options that they have in how to receive benefits they are entitled to – something that they routinely do not do.

                FFS: you idiot, breaking stupid laws is just part of the political debate. You just have to be willing to deal with consequences if a court convicts you.

                • Norfolk Traveller

                  So you’re comparing a welfare cheat with slaves? Gee you have swallowed the whole martyr complex thing. Hey look I’d swallow it too, if Metiria had fessed up years ago and paid the money back. But 20 years too late? Nah.

                  • lprent

                    So tell why me the situation is any different. Virtually all social change comes through potentially breaking laws. Almost any law will do when some officious little dickhead like you wants to convict others with obviously stupid laws – like those that defined people as slaves or defined people as beneficiaries with limited rights.

                    Hell: my niece was convicted of “intimidation by loitering” under the Crimes Act because she happened to be peaceably protesting. Had to expensively push it through to the high court to get a decision that the act of protesting was not loitering.

                    I have a low toleration for unqualified moralistic fuckwits like you trying to act as judge, jury, and executioner when you aren’t probably can’t even point to the law that Turei was alleged to have broken.

                    • Norfolk Traveller

                      “So tell why me the situation is any different. ”
                      Slavery was the brutal and murderous subjugation of a section oft he population based solely on their colour.
                      Metiria lived(s) in a country which provides money to people who find themselves in difficulty, and she cheated the system to get more than she was entitled.
                      Chalk and Cheese.

                      “…when you aren’t probably can’t even point to the law that Turei was alleged to have broken.”
                      Fraud – “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”
                      That’ll do for a start.

                    • lprent []

                      Slavery was the brutal and murderous subjugation of a section oft he population based solely on their colour.

                      A very limited definition… Slavery applied to people of the same colour and race as the slavers. It still does for the millions still in slavery. But at least you attempted to provide a definition.

                      And? My point was that it was absolutely legal in all of those countries where people broke the law to assist people fleeing slavery. Using the same legal standard that you are applying to Metiria, the slaves shouldn’t have tried to escape – it broke the law. Nor should have the free citizens under those laws attempted to free them because that broke the laws as well.

                      The laws have no moral authority, they are just rules that people can decide individually to ignore, they may just have suffer any consequences while such “brutal and murderous” laws were on the legal statutes.

                      Fraud – “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”

                      No it won’t. That is, according to google, a definition of a word by the Oxford dictionary – which is not a legally recognised in NZ law as any kind of authority.

                      The body of law in NZ is largely governed by statute for all criminal law. A google of “site:legislation.govt.nz” reveals that there is no such phrase in our published legal definitions of criminality.

                      Basically you are just sprouting legal incompetence. Perhaps you should try a little harder and be less frigging lazy.

              • Bill

                Well seeing that people who do have concern for the law can shift their vote to The Greens, safe in the knowledge that the Greens do not support fraud then, innit?

                • Norfolk Traveller

                  But have they?
                  The people who shifted their voting preference did so knowing Metiria committed fraud. That speaks volumes.

                  • Bill

                    Well. The idiocy is confirmed. I see Lynn has already remarked on that in a moderation note elsewhere. Leaving you to your fate now (whatever that may be).

                    • Norfolk Traveller

                      Bill it’s not idiocy, it’s reading behaviour. In the latest poll, support has shifted from Labour to the Greens. That is a simple fact. Those people who sifted did so KNOWING Metiria committed fraud. That is a simple fact. How else can you interpret that?

                      [lprent: You just asserted a ‘fact’. You now have a couple of hours to either prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your statement is true, or apoligize to everyone for offering an obviously false or unverifiable fact. Otherwise I kick you off for trying to start a stupid flamewar. Read the policy. ]

                    • Norfolk Traveller

                      “You just asserted a ‘fact’. ”
                      Actually two facts.
                      Fact 1:
                      “In the latest poll, support has shifted from Labour to the Greens.”
                      Proof: https://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/news/political-polls/

                      Fact 2:
                      “Those people who sifted did so KNOWING Metiria committed fraud.”
                      The poll was taken after Metiria’s admission.
                      But don’t take my word it:
                      “Labour is bleeding in a new poll – but a controversial admission of DPB fraud has given the Greens a massive boost.”
                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95260532/labour-bleeds-while-greens-profit-from-metiria-tureis-fraud-bomb

                    • lprent []

                      Neither the first nor second link support your allegations. They do not contain facts that support your allegation. It is you repeating the opinion of someone else – which is a FAIL.

                      The second wasn’t what I pulled you up on. You asserted a fact that people shifted from Labour to the Greens. That might be an inferred opinion. But it isn’t a fact. It is an unverified and unverifiable fact unless you can show actual evidence that the individuals in the poll had done exactly that.

                      Since that type of poll deliberately randomly selects about 800-1000 people from a voting population of about 3 million, and the portion who would vote Labour are a high percentage of that poll, it is extremely unlikely that you could even find even one person who had done what you allege they did.

                      In effect to my eyes you are levelling a serious defamatory and probably criminal accusation against the polling company that they were violating their agreements with whoever commissioned the poll to provide a random poll.

                      So when are you going to stop breaking the laws of NZ?

                      (you really are an ignorant and probably stupid troll – and your time and my patience is running out. You subsequent two comments appear to me to be whining, and have been filed into spam.)

                    • Norfolk Traveller

                      “It is an unverified and unverifiable fact unless you can show actual evidence that the individuals in the poll had done exactly that.”
                      1. It is supported by the article I referenced.
                      2. It was is supported by the numbers. Unless you think the 3% the Greens picked up came from National or NZF?

                      [lprent: It isn’t a matter of what I think because I simply don’t know. There are aren’t enough facts to provide any kind of evidence. It was matter of what you can prove to back your assertion of a fact. If you want to express an opinion, a hypothesis or a vague feeling, then just state that is what it it is. Don’t try to lie by claiming your opinion as being a fact. We welcome opinion and the people who will defend theirs.

                      But inventing spurious facts doesn’t add anything to a robust debate, it just pisses moderators off to go around wiping up the trail of the resulting flamewars. We don’t have time for it and would prefer if you are lucky to attempt to educate even the most sorry arsed fool who tries it on our site. If you are intelligent, then try option A.

                      2 week ban. Consider it as an educational experience about why you don’t troll here. ]

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    You can’t imagine any other reasons to support MT. That’s not a question.

                    • Norfolk Traveller

                      That’s not the point. There could be other reasons, but anyone who shifted their support must be comfortable with potentially voting for a self confessed fraudster and benefit cheat.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      1. It won’t surprise me one bit if the investigation shows that MT has nothing to answer for. Personally, as a taxpayer, I’d be happier if she simply refused to cooperate, because I don’t think human rights abusers deserve that much respect.

                      2. In the event that she were found to have broken WINZ’s disgusting rules, people who vote National are apparently comfortable with homeless people freezing to death, so pretending to the moral high ground is a fail.

                  • Gabby

                    The people who shifted their voting preference did so knowing WHY
                    Metiria (apparently) committed fraud. That speaks volumes.

    • Bill 3.6

      You still aren’t getting this mmp thing are you?

      Beyond the concerns of those all bound up in blind tribal affiliation, any movement of support between NZ Labour and the Green Party is largely irrelevant. I say ‘largely’ because obviously the balance will affect the tone of the next government.

      And NZ Labour were told often enough and stridently enough by enough people that serving up policies that were just so much mushed gruel was going to hurt them. They chose not to listen.

  4. One Anonymous Bloke 4

    From the precis on the front page:

    …intense annoyance from angry right-wing pundits

    More like their fears coming true. And now, they know the nasty hateful narrative doesn't work.

    Back to the drawing board ya mongrels!

  5. BM 5

    None of the Greens social policies will get implemented, Labour and NZ First won’t allow it.

    There will be no 20% increase in benefits nor will there be a no strings attached approach to welfare.

    Or does that not matter as long as you get bennies off the couch and down to the voting booths?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

      So you’ve conceded the election already. It’s only a 1% gain for the Left, BM. Chin up.

      • BM 5.1.1

        Yeah all is lost 🙄

        Seriously though unless Labour and NZ First get behind them the Greens social policies aren’t going to happen.

        I think that’ll become obvious as the election draws closer.

        • weka 5.1.1.1

          BREAKING NEWS, coalition partners don’t get all their policies enacted exactly how they want them.

          “Or does that not matter as long as you get bennies off the couch and down to the voting booths?”

          That’s right. Because even if the Greens don’t get this particular policy enacted as written, poor people are still far better off with more Green MPs in parliament than any others.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1

            to be fair, BM isn’t used to the idea of coalition partners who have policy desires slightly different to the largest “partner”.

            • WILD KATIPO 5.1.1.1.1.1

              L0l!…. that was a pretty big shovel you used to take a dig with … heheehe ..

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.2

              yes and I think this is a big deal for NZ. Lots of people think MMP is about a major party with some minor party support and they can’t yet conceive of how government would work with a true coalition.

              As always, NZF is the monkey wrench, doesn’t play nicely with others.

          • Korero Pono 5.1.1.1.2

            +1

      • Wayne 5.1.2

        With National at 47%, it will be really hard for Winston to go left, though obviously not impossible.

        In my view if National (and 1 ACT and 1 UF) is 3 MP’s or less from an overall majority, then I reckon NZF will support National in govt. ACT will loose out because of Seymour’s statements about Winston.

        A centre left govt becomes more likely if National drops below 45%. That way Labour, the Greens and NZF are likely to have a working majority (if Winston wants to go left).

        So far it looks like Labour and the Greens are trading votes, presumably the left of Labour are going to the Greens.

        Could the Greens eventually displace Labour? In my view unlikely unless some of the unions, especially education and health, start to look like they are obviously leaning Green. In that case Labour starts to look like an old fashioned rump party of around 20%, with the Greens at a similar level.

        I must say I expected Winston to do better in the poll, say climbing to 13% or so. Presumably the next polls will be done in less than a month.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.1

          With National at 47% in a CB poll at this time in the electoral cycle, they are on track to get about 42%. Assuming Turei hasn’t caused a “pollquake” that is.

          Turnout will decide this election.

    • riffer 5.2

      I may be reading it the wrong way BM but it comes across that you believe that either beneficiaries’ votes shouldn’t count, or you believe they shouldn’t be allowed.

      I get the feeling you’d prefer that voting be left to “educated land owners”.

      • BM 5.2.1

        No, I’m just pointing out the Greens are just one part of the left coalition, the other two parts have to agree before the Greens social policy gets the go ahead.

        Can you see Peters saying yes?, can you see Little saying yes?

        • srylands 5.2.1.1

          Doesn’t that apply to all policy? If the only policy that is implemented is that which all of those 3 parties agree on, I can’t see much being implemented at all.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1.1

            Fraudulent right wing policy bludger pushes “mandate” narrative as hard as he can. Ignores fact that the business of government is governance.

            I don’t think they’ll have much trouble figuring out that putting homeless people in motels is a sign that you are very shit at governing.

            One of the bottom lines that Winston pays lip service to is nationalisation of the electricity companies. The sky is falling the sky is falling!

            • srylands 5.2.1.1.1.1

              You are incomprehensible as usual. And extremely rude. I ask that you withdraw and apologise for the references to “fraudulent” “bludger” and “right wing”.

              Also you made a reference reference to me “governing”. I am not a member of the government. So I ask you to withdraw that statement also.

              You really need to learn some basic manners.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                A bit over your head was it?

                You were expressing your 0% support opinion about the lack of common ground between L/G/NZF (I suggest you go and look at NZF policy more closely).

                Perhaps there is a right wing government somewhere that might pay you handsomely for long-form reports that support the things they want to do to people, but ’round here your opinion doesn’t mean shit, and you don’t even have Rebstock’s name recognition.

                I hope that’s a bit clearer.

              • srylands … yep ,… if you cant get traction , play the ‘ precious’ game.

                You really need to get off your high horse and stop resorting to calling people ‘ immature’ , ‘ incomprehensible’ , ‘ lacking basic manners ‘, and saying things like ‘ ask you to withdraw ‘…

                Who do you think you are , mate?

                • halfcrown

                  You have got it wrong Wild, us peasants must know our place when we are commuting with our betters and elders,
                  If you have not got a cloth cap to wring and can lend you mine.

          • lprent 5.2.1.1.2

            If the only policy that is implemented is that which all of those 3 parties agree on, I can’t see much being implemented at all.

            snap. I was just about to point that out as well. Ina 3 large party coalition scenario the politics are different from anything we have seen in recent decades here.

            It is MMP, and a different situation to any of the election periods.

            Unlike recent elections we’re likely to not get the scenarios of one big party with some minnows forming the government. We’re likely to get one of two scenarios.

            Much bigger party joining up with a smaller party like 1996 and at a stretch 1999

            1996: One party (National – 44 seats) having to make up a small number of seats from another party (NZ First 17 seats) with different views like 1996. That will typically be done with up agreements with some specific policies and some horsetrading concessions. In that instance a faction of the National under Shipley got tired of compromise, rolled Bolger, and then deliberately disintegrated NZF.

            In 1999 when the Alliance was a significiant but smaller partner for Labour (10 seats vs Labour’s 49). The alliance disintegrated internally during the course of the government.

            Basically it appears to be a pretty unstable configuration in NZ, and I’d predict with a high degree of confidence that if National teams up with NZ First the horrible National faction system will result in the same kind of stupidity that they did back in 1998 – a crippled government

            The other scenario is one we haven’t tried in NZ for a long time – since the early part of the 20th century.

            Three parties of broadly the same size making up a government with a need to get all parties to sign on to pass legislation. But they do horse trading on particular policies – each holding their nose on some to get support on another. When support is failed to be gained, then they can push it into the legislative frame work by seeking support from outside of the governing parties.

            In many other countries this tripartite government is probably the most stable configuration after the single large party whipping their factions model and having a few support client parties outside of the internal faction system.

            Effectively much of the faction fighting and compromises are in the open, and each of the parties are perfectly aware that they have to hang together despite their differences, or they will hand individually as the electorate rejects their bickering.

            From what I have seen governments of this type tend towards high levels of longevity, often having broad usually informal alliances that last decades in an agree to disagree manner.

            But it’d be a refreshing change after decades of either the autocratic homogeneity of the tail wagging the dog and/or the dog destroying up the tail and reducing political diversity in governing. I really don’t like the sight of smaller parties dying when they get sucked into government because they are only set up to be in opposition. They will never grow governing experience that way.

            Same thing applies to National. National really needs to separate in a couple of parties rather than muffling their various political strands. But National power bosses seem to like the autocratic whipped faction model, and that still has some adherents in Labour who haven’t quite caught up with the 21st century yet.

            • Karen 5.2.1.1.2.1

              The main reason I still think Andrew Little should remain the leader of the Labour Party is that negotiating agreements between different parties is his strength.

              The idea of a coalition of three parties of substance should be is absolutely doable, but the problem as I see it is Winston will use a less than 30% share for Labour as an excuse to go with National. He is an old-fashioned conservative at heart. However, I agree that if he does do that it will be very messy for National.

              The only way to ensure the Nats lose is to party vote Green or Labour.

              • mikes

                “Winston will use a less than 30% share for Labour as an excuse to go with National”

                Winston will talk to the party with the largest vote percentage first as he always does. That looks likely to be National. In my opinion Bill English will give Winston pretty much anything he wants, in order to remain Prime Minister.

                Labour would probably give Winston Plenty too, but the Greens might have to agree as well, which they may not do.

                “He is an old-fashioned conservative at heart.”

                Labour’s traditional support base which was blue collar workers are conservative so that wouldn’t have been a problem before Labour abandoned the working class.

                I would still suggest that the biggest reason for Labour’s low polling numbers is that they have forgotten the working class and Andrew Little (honest and genuine though he is) is not really hugely charismatic. I believe he is also hamstrung by his caucus.

                I know heaps of working class people and am noticing two quite noticeable things in regards to the election. Firstly, it appears that many will simply not vote because for them nothing really changes regardless of who is elected into office. Secondly, a large number will vote for NZ first or even National because of Labour cosying up to the Greens.

                Labour is a huge disappointment for the working class.

            • Tony Veitch (not etc) 5.2.1.1.2.2

              QFT.

              Perhaps not on the Italian model, more the German model of stable, long lasting, socially progressive, climate change aware, governments!

              Bring it on! This is exactly what this country needs.

            • Wayne 5.2.1.1.2.3

              Iprent

              Twenty years have gone by since 1996. If National and NZF team up, they will have fully learnt the lessons of 1996 – 1999. Bill, Winston, Gerry, Ron and a number of others were there in 1996. They will be determined to do better than back then. So no, I do not expect a repeat of the errors of the first MMP government.

              As for the centre/left alternative of three parties, all with a large say, well that truly is an unknown. Presumably each of them get something of real significance, but whatever that is, it has to be palatable to the others. So Winston would not get his referenda, the Greens will not get their welfare policy, no idea what Labour does not get.

              • Twenty years have gone by since 1996. If National and NZF team up, they will have fully learnt the lessons of 1996 – 1999.

                National hasn’t. They haven’t learned anything from the last 500+ years. They’re still in the feudal mindset.

                Presumably each of them get something of real significance, but whatever that is, it has to be palatable to the others.

                As I’ve said before – the policies of NZ1st, Labour and the Greens mesh quite well. National’s don’t mesh with anybodies – even their own internal factions have differences that don’t mesh.

              • Louis

                This is what I dont get. Winston has indicated strongly he doesn’t like the current situation NZ is in, and often blames National. He wants change to “make NZ great again” so how is forming a government with National going to enact that change? Its the same old line up with Winston in it, nothing changes.

              • @ WAYNE.

                There’s been a lot of water under the bridge now with this govt . Scandal upon scandal . And neo liberalism is not getting the free ride it once had back in 1996.

                This is the post Brexit / Trump era now. And people ( yes – those ‘ people’ – members of the public that get ignored except until election time ) are demanding better.

                And it doesn’t matter how ‘determined’ National are , – and btw , all that is , is an admission of performing badly ,- they are now trying to swim against an emerging mood for change. Radical change. Social democratic change.

                Even the IMF is calling neo liberalism a failure.

                And as for Labour ? ,… its policy’s on raising the minimum wage and looking at introducing a Living Wage is fair making the far right shudder…

              • lprent

                So no, I do not expect a repeat of the errors of the first MMP government.

                It really isn’t up to National MPs with experience of the 1996 election, or even those National MPs who pushed ridiculous assertion up about NZ First’s crappy accounting in 2008 is it?

                It really depends what the NZ First MPs and members think about the possibility of it happening again.

                In any case, if you look at the withering of the National’s coalition partners since 2008 as National took their support, it would appear that National has simply figured out how to do the same thing more covertly.

                As for the centre/left alternative of three parties, all with a large say, well that truly is an unknown.

                There is the point really. To be a junior partner of a much large factionalised caucus much like that of 1996 with what I suspect will be similar nett results of having a lot less leverage. Or to be partnered with two other parties of a more similar size. That changes the balances of leverage and deal making because you have a much larger say and ability to horse trade.

                Just thinking of the potential for ongoing deal making must have those ambitious MPs in the NZ First caucus salivating at wielding a block influence for the next election… It provides them an opportunity to do it in a public way that is more likely to yield them votes at the next election rather than being dominated by the debilitating shadow of an overwhelming partner. Especially if they do a confidence and supply cross bench agreement as they did in 2005 taht allows them to both be part of the governing coalition while also staying in opposition to it.

                • Anne

                  It provides them an opportunity to do it in a public way that is more likely to yield them votes at the next election rather than being dominated by the debilitating shadow of an overwhelming partner.

                  Ooh lprent, you’ve dropped the cat among the pigeons! They (Wayne and co.) hadn’t though of that.

            • Enough is Enough 5.2.1.1.2.4

              Agreed Lynn

              That is why Little needs to shut the f up about any credibility issues with a government made up of 3 medium size parties.

              There is no credibility issue Andrew. If you get the support of Parliament to lead the government then you are credible. end of story.

            • The Lone Haranguer 5.2.1.1.2.5

              What historically, MMP has done in NZ is allowed a small party to support the main party who largely carry on in a FPP mindset with some policy crumbs thrown to the small party.

              And then at the following election, the small party gets pretty much savaged by its own supporters who figure they may as well vote for the big party.

              What we may have this time (still lots of water to go under the bridge tho) is a three way deal of “sort of equals” Recent polling changes appear to have weakened the NZLP hand and appears to have strengthened the hands of NZ1 and the GP.

              Maybe we are heading for our first “proper” MMP government?

        • WILD KATIPO 5.2.1.2

          @BM

          Its only putting off the inevitable. What has been exposed is peoples dissatisfaction with current policy and dogma. All social movements have a build up period, which then expresses itself finally through political statements.

          That is what has occurred with Metiria’s statements and announcing of the Greens welfare policy’s. The same – to a lesser degree – with Labours policy’s of raising the minimum wage and working towards a Living Wage.

          NZ First , Labour and Greens policy’s have common grounds with immigration , privatization issues , housing , health / education.

          In the long game , its going to change. What we will see – eventually – is a return to something more like what we had pre Rogernomics. That’s the inevitable cycle at work in a country that still has a collective memory of what a true social democracy looks like.

          And the bitching and hysteria we see now on the far right is a symptom of that.

          • srylands 5.2.1.2.1

            There is no “far right” in New Zealand. You are being ridiculous.

            There is just good policy and bad policy. That is why TOP is an attractive option. They reject this left / right 1950s bullshit..

            EDIT And to suggest that we are going to back to pre 1984 is utterly mad. We are a prosperous, free country thanks to Sir Roger.

            • McFlock 5.2.1.2.1.1

              There is no “far right” in New Zealand.

              Yes there is. You are part of it.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.2.1.2

              There is just good policy and bad policy.

              And all the bad policy comes from the RWNJs such as yourself.

              We are a prosperous, free country thanks to Sir Roger.

              We have growing poverty and inequality. That’s not a sign of a prosperous and free country but one which is being oppressed by the rich.

    • Labour have already said they’re very sympathetic to implementing the non-financial changes to benefits that the Greens are proposing, and the financial ones would be discussed in coalition negotiations. Yes, that would be subject to making a deal with New Zealand First on current polling, but New Zealand First is traditionally quite willing to entertain policy concessions in other areas in return for their support on some more liberal social policies that they don’t precisely agree to.

  6. James 6

    On 24% even little says there is a credibility issue trying to form a government.

    3 more years !!

    • DoublePlusGood 6.1

      On 50%, NZ First, Labour and Green have a strong mandate for a stable government.

      • Psycho Milt 6.1.1

        There is no “NZ First, Labour and Green.” That’s the worst kind of wishful thinking – the kind that can cause large-scale practical effects in the real world. NZ First isn’t a left-wing party and won’t be forming a coalition with Labour and the Green Party after this election – kidding yourself that that might happen, and worse, kidding other people that it might happen, only encourages voter drift from Labour to NZ First. The people making up that drift are going to re-elect National, regardless of what they personally think they’re doing.

        • DoublePlusGood 6.1.1.1

          You can also argue that NZ First isn’t a right wing party, and thus if they formed a coalition with National it would be highly inherently unstable.

          • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.1.1

            Oh, definitely. Any government that includes NZF will be inherently unstable, because Winston Peters. But the polls are saying National won’t have a choice about it if they want to stay in government (and “be the government” is National’s entire policy programme).

            • DoublePlusGood 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Shouldn’t National be trying to woo Labour so they don’t have to deal with Winston?
              (Tongue and cheek, but there have been similar coalitions overseas before, usually to the wrecking of both parties – National might be happier with wrecking both Labour and National, rather than just Labour)

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.2

              Any government that includes NZF will be inherently unstable, because Winston Peters.

              IIRC, the last government that had NZ1st in it was quite stable.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2

          NZ First isn’t a left-wing party

          As it stands they’re further Left than Labour. They also happen to be more authoritarian but not by as much as they were.

          The people making up that drift are going to re-elect National, regardless of what they personally think they’re doing.

          Possibly. It would certainly be better for the Labour voters drifting to NZ1st to stay with Labour.

          • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.2.1

            Do you think Winston Peters gives a rat’s ass about what would be better for any ex-Labour voters who are stupid enough to vote NZF?

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2.1.1

              Probably. He’s going to all sorts of meetings and putting out all sorts of policies that are appealing to those ex-Labour voters. He’s winning with them. Unless he wants another 1996 he will honour those policies. Going with National will ensure that those policies won’t get a look in and he knows that and that he will lose out big time – again.

              So, yeah, there’s a possibility that he will go with National but I think it’s less likely than that he’ll go with Labour.

              • Policies, sure. And after he’s accepted the better offer from National, he’ll spend months ridiculing journalists who enquire after those policies as people who just don’t get it and the voters are sick of their lies etc. He’s winning with suckers, basically.

    • KJT 6.2

      Around the world the most stable Governments have been coalitions of several parties.

      The divergence of opinion, and the amount of thought, that has to go into getting them all to agree, prevents stupidity like the ideological brain farts of 1980’s labour and the self interested cronyism of National.

      One party dictatorships, often with a minority of support, have not been good for New Zealand.

      • One party dictatorships, often with a minority of support, have not been good for New Zealand.

        QFT

      • WILD KATIPO 6.2.2

        – stupidity like the ideological brain farts of 1980’s Labour and the self interested cronyism of National –

        Perfect.

        And you have the full support of the IMF in backing you up regarding neo liberalism , – so take heart !

    • greywarshark 6.3

      James
      You can’t party for ever, or even 3 more years!!!!

      The party’s over
      It’s time to call it a day
      They’ve burst your
      Pretty balloon
      And taken the moon away

      It’s time to wind up
      The masquerade
      Just make your mind up
      The piper must be paid…
      Music by: Jule Styne
      Lyrics by: Betty Comden and Adolph Green

      Try singing that. It might develop your vocal chords to full masculine tones.
      Your reedy offerings are pathetic.

    • srylands 6.4

      I don’t know why he said that. If National had 44% but no partners they are dead. The Prime minister would advise the Governor General to invite Mr Little to form a government. If he reports back with a three way coalition he would be sworn in as prime minister. Obviously he would need to win a confidence vote.

  7. Kiev 7

    The preferred PM stakes are interesting.

    25% of LAB voters want Andrew as PM
    25% of LAB voters want Jacinda as PM
    50% of LAB voters want somebody else as PM

    Who do they want ?

  8. Weka’s got a post from me on this coming up, but the margin of error for the Greens in the latest Colmar Brunton poll is only about 2.2%, (remember, the maximum margin of error being 3.1% only applies to propositions that are near 50%. The margin goes down as the proposition you’re looking at gets more lopsided) and they’re up 4%, so this is at least a 1.8% gain, and at most a 6.2% one.

  9. Penny Bright 9

    Folks – ‘where the people lead – the politicians will follow’.

    Polls schmolls ….

    The only poll that counts is 23 September 2017.

    A week is a LONG time in politics …

    Let’s CRANK UP public opposition to CORPORATE welfare!

    Use public money for SOCIAL welfare – not CORPORATE welfare!

    How much public money is being wasted at local and central government level on the undeserving rich?

    Wasted on private sector consultants and contractors – when public services could be provided far more cheaply ‘in house’ under the genuine public service model?

    Did you know that contracting out public services have been proven to be TWICE as expensive??

    https://m.afscme.org/now/archive/blog/privatization-doesnt-pay-pogo-study-proves

    “Government contractors cost taxpayers more than federal public service workers to do the same work, according to a new report by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).

    AFSCME has long opposed privatization of public services.

    We’ve noted that outsourcing not only wastes taxpayers’ money, but also opens the door to corruption.

    In its latest study, “Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors,” POGO reveals just how expensive contracting out really is. ”

    _______________________

    Penny Bright

    2017 Independent candidate for Tamaki.

    • srylands 9.1

      Penny if contractors were not value for money they would not be used.

      • gsays 9.1.1

        Your assertion is based on what srylands?

        Is housing folks in motels value for money?

        Building roads in Auckland rather than more rail value for money?

        Saudi sheep bribe value for money?

        Flag referendum? ……

      • Stuart Munro 9.1.2

        If contractors were value for money there would be no need for secrecy about the payments they receive from central or local government.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.3

        Oh I’m sure you deliver the right lies in a neat package, so that your clients can pretend their dogma is rational. They get a good deal. Taxpayers, not so much.

      • Prove it.

        Penny’s put research behind her. You’ve just used assumption and a poor one at that considering this governments use of cronyism.

      • McFlock 9.1.5

        Actually, on this one I agree with you.

        However, the value they provide is not “public good” or “cost effectiveness”. The “value” they provide to the legislators who advocate for and choose to use non-governmental contractors is threefold:
        contractors enable legislators to evade responsibility for broken systems;
        contractors lower government transparency, making democratic accountability less likely;
        the use of contractors on long term contracts embeds policy decisions for the term of those contracts.

        Additional “value” might be provided in the term of explicit bribes of financial conflicts of interest, or less obviously in the form of secure employment for the legislator after their career as a “representative” has ended. This employment can be either in the form of roles and directorships in associated companies, or as lobbyists on behalf of the contractors’ industries.

        Your assumption that contractors would not be hired if they failed to provide value for money is reasonable, barring privatisation zealots who actually are stupid enough to believe comments like yours at face value. But you failed to ask where the value is gained – it’s not gained by the people.

        You’re actually sort of both right.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.1.6

        srylands – only if you can rely on your assumption that “value for money” is the selection criteria. Use of private contractors is just as likely to involve “blind ideology”, “favours for mates” and “donations to ruling political parties”, in my view.

      • DoublePlusGood 9.1.7

        Hahaha, fuck you are naïve!

        At my place of work I think about 10% of contractors give good service, and all of the contracts are hugely overpriced. This keeps happening because of edicts not to hire full time staff. So my workplace wastes vast amounts of money pretending it is running a lean operation.

    • Good on you , Penny , – keep sticking it to these Blairite’s and RWNJ’s !!!

      Its fun seeing them squawk and rant and try to justify their indefensible positions !!!

  10. There would be great advantage to Labour and The Greens and those here who support them, so dismiss polling as a tool altogether and focus instead on winning the election. Huge amounts of time and (column) space are wasted with quibble over ephemeral poll results and comment churn. I think most here know this, but can’t resist, however, if we were able to genuinely see behind the Punch & Judy show of the polls, we’d have so much more energy, enthusiasm and joie de vivre to direct toward a successful outcome for us all. That said, nothing is likely to change, as we are addicted.

  11. KJT 11

    Greens policies actually get some airtime in a sea of relentless pro National propaganda, and their polling goes up. Funny that.

    And. With Labour still mired in slightly blunting the effects of neo-liberalism, the only hope of reversing New Zealand’s backward slide, is, a Green led Government.

    • With Labour still mired in slightly blunting the effects of neo-liberalism, the only hope of reversing New Zealand’s backward slide, is, a Green led Government.

      QFT

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 11.1.1

        And even the Greens struggle to throw off the neoliberal dogma (e.g. the fiscal responsibility nonsense)

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1

          Yep, that’s really irritating but I think that’s because the majority of people don’t yet fully understand how the present monetary system works and how it’s a Ponzi Scheme. Once that becomes common knowledge it’ll be easier to change.

  12. mauī 12

    Green’s highest poll in 3 years I think. Not that I believe polls as they’re more often used as a stick to beat the left with.

  13. Michael 13

    No point blaming mainstream media for Labour’s abysmal results. Of course they’re going to shill for neoliberalism – and they’re hardly singing the Greens’ praises. Labour’s problem remains that it won’t apologise for neoliberalism and it won’t develop credible alternative policies, either. As a result, people are either sticking with neoliberalism (NACT) in the hope that the very rich will look after them – or they’re turning to fascism (NZ First). Some people are, of course, voting Green but I think any increase they get will be from disillusioned Labour voters who haven’t given up altogether. In short, Labour gets the result it deserves.

    • garibaldi 13.1

      OK Michael , let’s look at your first and last sentence.
      1) “No point blaming mainstream media for Labour’s abysmal results”.
      I think a lot of the blame for the phone being off the hook for Labour is the media campaign against the Left. The media never measures Labour policy against National policy. It’s all attack the person ( the gotcha syndrome).
      2) The last sentence…”Labour gets the result it deserves”.
      Conversely one cannot believe that National gets the result it deserves, they are an appalling government by many standards.
      Labour is always portrayed negatively and National is made out to be oh so sensible. Labour does not get the result it deserves and neither does National.

  14. The Greens gain was Labour’s loss, as widely and breathlessly reported…

    Certainly was in my case – was planning to vote Labour this election, now planning to vote Green (hell, I’ve even donated money, and I can’t put into words just how much I usually prefer spending money on myself rather than donating it to others).

    That’s the view from those still invested in FPP horse-races, in MMP there is no effective change in the left-right balance.

    Exactly. I’ve changed my preference for which party should have more influence in a Labour/Green government, but haven’t reduced the level of support for a Labour/Green government at all. I’m picking I’m not alone in having made that change in the last few weeks, but none of us have changed our preference for a Labour/Green government.

    • rhinocrates 14.1

      Look at the stories that they tell:

      Green: “I struggled to survive under neoliberalism and had to lie to Winz to be able to feed my daughter. We need to change this.”

      Labour: “I once ordered a latte and it arrived lukewarm, so I didn’t leave a tip. Gosh, I hope that doesn’t offend David Farrar.”

    • Union city reds 14.2

      Used to two tick labour, but definitely party vote green for a couple of elections now.
      I should probably change my handle to reflect that move.

      I now wonder if the mou is damaging the greens chances? Heh.

  15. Ad 15

    A bit early Anthony.

    Inhale.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      You’re doing it wrong: when you make a wish you aren’t supposed to let on about it.

  16. savenz 16

    +1 “I think Labour and The Greens have it right. Labour should keep aiming for the center-left, and The Greens go harder. If Metiria’s gamble mobilises non-voters it will grow the left share over all.”

    What has been shown by polls in the past is that anything can happen on election day.

    At present it looks like the Greens gamble has been successful and they are going up and specially targeting beneficiaries. It remains to be seen if those who say they will vote Green, actually turn up on the day and do so. Greens were polling 14% last election and ended up on 11%

    Last election all looked good for Labour’s gamble on capital gains taxes and longer retirement age as well as trying to ignore dirty politics and not confront it. They kept changing leaders and having friction in their party. MSM were full of it, egging on Labour making it seem like their changes were going to be beneficial. But the voters did not agree with Labour’s approach and punished Labour. Taking a steady hand might be the best approach and then wowing with some great ideas and vision each week up to the election.

    I think Labour are not in as much trouble as the polls suggest and it’s becoming a cycle of complaining about low labour polls in MSM which is making Labour poll lower and lower. Clearly Labour need to find a way to get around MSM that has taken to smearing Labour continually with fake news like leadership ‘conflicts’ and Andrew little may not even get a seat! Dream on Gower and anti Labour and anti John Campbell, TV3!

    Now Greens has taken the beneficiary vote, that leaves Labour clear to directly speak to middle NZ.

    The reality is that many Kiwis are not doing too badly but very concerned about things like water being sold off, pollution, health and education and quality of life for themselves and their children.

    65% of Kiwis are home owners so targeting landlords and the housing crisis might not be the same page as actually the home owning voters Labour need to woo to avoid staying at 22% if you add it up the Greens and Labour’s vote share correspond to those that don’t own houses, to win Labour needs to turn that around as they need the 65% homeowners on board to win the election. It’s simply maths.

    To date, Labour’s campaign has been too vanilla. That is their problem – they need to find a new way to give life to the debates around quality of life in this country and make it exciting to actually vote for Labour and how they are different from National and get off the impression they are only concerned with renters. I’m not saying that because I’m against renters but feel there is a kinda ‘us vs them’ approach in housing from Labour and they are on the side of the 35%, not enough to win an election.

    • DoublePlusGood 16.1

      How many of that 65% are landlords though?

      As long as you make clear that your policies are targeting people owning large property portfolios and have a focus on keeping people’s family homes safe, then you should be able to attract a lot of that 65%.

      • savenz 16.1.1

        I don’t know how many are landlords but in NZ, but houses are a lot more than just a house. That’s because for the last 25 years wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. A house is both a dwelling, an investment and a security blanket – even the plain old family home. Labour just makes everything so complicated, family homes, trusts, capital gains, falling house prices, negative gearing. People just switch off and think anti house.

        Remember veteren Helen being taken out by some energy efficient lightbulbs? The reality is, many Kiwi’s live in old homes that are not up to scratch. The appearance of rubbing everyone’s noses in it, (remember 90% failed the WOF that all houses not just rentals) might NOT be the way to win friends and influence voters.

        Greens gave people grants for insulation, Greens are now increasing benefits 20%, Greens are giving to their 15% of voters not taking it away.

        Labour just seem to be coming across as a bit punitive post Clark, work harder for retirement, capital gains (aka more taxes), etc. We all expect great health and education in this country and don’t want to pay any more for a similar service.

        The last few decades all has not been well in NZ, from bankruptcy of the country after Muldoon, the banks failures of BNZ, 18% interest rates, cuts to benefits and the employment contracts bill, leaky building, earthquakes and floods.

        Maybe just maybe, Kiwis want to live in Planet Key and hear some positive news (even if they know it can’t last forever and based on a Ponzi scheme).

        Food for thought. Labour needs real vision of a positive future, a vision more than 40+% of people want to vote for. Not a slogan, a real vision of a better country under Labour.

        • timeforacupoftea 16.1.1.1

          Well said savenz ! I agree with nearly 100% of what you have said above.

          AND
          on savenz comments here.
          “If Metiria’s gamble mobilises non-voters it will grow the left share over all.”

          What has been shown by polls in the past is that anything can happen on election day.

          At present it looks like the Greens gamble has been successful and they are going up and specially targeting beneficiaries. It remains to be seen if those who say they will vote Green, actually turn up on the day and do so. Greens were polling 14% last election and ended up on 11%”

          ———————————————————————————————-
          But I can almost take a punt here that these people polled won’t bother turning up.
          However if our prisoners were allowed to vote Metiria would get the boost in votes she so wishes for.

          I can see Winston Peters as Prime Minister for NZ first / Labour / Greens –
          Or Winston Peters Deputy Prime Minister with National.

          NZ will be a sad country whoever runs it for the next 3 years.

  17. Reality 17

    I was impressed with Andrew Little’s responses today. To start with, risky or not,he got air time, which has been difficult to get with all the Meteria commotion. It spurred me on to donate to Labour for the first time ever. He is not a show pony, but a fighter and he came over as resolute and determined.

    • savenz 17.1

      +1 Reality – the MSM are trying to bring down Labour by doing what they did last time to Cunliffe, horrible politics and MSM bias and dirty politics.

      My comments are to try to point out what’s going wrong with Labour last election and what they need to do to turn themselves around this election with all the negative MSM (and it’s not a change of leadership).

      • Reality 17.1.1

        Savenz, yes absolutely the attacks have started on Andrew Little by the usual right wing screeching. Just like 2014 and 2011. No matter what he does they rip into him. It would be fair enough if they were equally as challenging to Bill English but that just does not happen. Why not?

      • Psych nurse 17.1.2

        Having just watched TV3 news the glee and gloating displayed by Gower reporting poll results was just nauseous.Obviously a job well done. its about time left wing polies just walked out of biased interviews, give the media nothing to report other than the walk out. Concentrate on other forms of media. Deprive MSM of steam, emasculate them.

  18. Jeremy 18

    This whole issue has really opened my eyes to the opinions of a section of society I obviously don’t have enough contact with personally.

    I really thought the revelation from MT would seriously hurt the Greens in the polls, and that most progressive voters and current beneficiaries would find it objectionable how MT revealed her past indiscretion.

    I guess it is never too late to learn something.

    • DoublePlusGood 18.1

      The story had huge resonance for a large number of New Zealanders. And it headlined a reveal of a policy that promises a significant impact on many New Zealanders.

      • savenz 18.1.1

        Huge sections of NZer’s have been humiliated by WINZ type agencies, and plenty are also ‘next generation’ who actually grew up with a WINZ parent but may be doing ok for themselves, but remember the stress as a child of WINZ.

        The DPB for example is a benefit the is not functional – many people on it are criminalised for having a relationship for example – it’s just a bizarre and punitive rule that is being used by the National Party in particular to rip off vulnerable members of society, by denying them the benefit that they should be entitled to, for their children.

        Emotion is what get’s people to vote who may otherwise be disengaged.

        Greens need to make sure they keep the message on their voters, to actually turn up to vote, to make the difference.

        It also leaves Labour much more free to go after the middle NZ that they think they are targeting but to date they are not because their messaging is more to support the down and out rather than middle NZ.

        For example Greens could target renters and Labour could target those homeowners – aka the rising costs of rates and the reduction of services to homeowners under National’s approach of deregulation. Plenty of appaulling examples from the UK to fall back on such as Grenfell as well as local examples of our water being sold off for peanuts as well as council land sales to developers.

        Ports of Auckland now want to build a carpark and hotel on our waterfront not give back the land to the rate payers to use it! I rest my case! Supercity being forced onto Auckland and now we have to mow our own berms, reductions in library services and yes, more and more rates being extracted for less and less services. I’m sure plentiful examples of this carry on under National in every city.

        Labour need to look at local examples, it is pretty much free for all exploitation out there. Now even picking up your kids in a car will give you a $140 fine as schools are designed not to have enough parking. That makes people very mad!

        Like the DPB example, it might be illegal in law, but the law is not practical. It’s more about ripping people off, than helping them with a common issue.

  19. Sigh 19

    So the two polls today show the Greens have simply taken a few votes off Labour and sent a bunch of Labour votes to NZ First. I don’t see how that helps grow the centre-left vote and change the government. Quite the opposite in fact.

    • Korero Pono 19.1

      Who sent a bunch of Labour votes to NZ First?

      • That would be Labour as they try to stay exactly the same and follow the same failed ideology that the 4th Labour government brought in to the country despite all the evidence that the populace wants real change from that same failed ideology.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Strong first week of firearms buy-back events
    The first full week of the firearms buy-back and amnesty has produced a strong turnout as events roll out nationwide for the first time. “Momentum is slowly starting to build as community collection events are held across the entire country, ...
    1 day ago
  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    1 week ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 week ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 week ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago